Cut or Uncut?

Author	Post
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 4 2003 : 10:48PM Hi All, Most porn comming out of USA have men who has no skin on their dicks, being from the UK you can understand I dont easily identify with the male actors on US porn, however I also noticed slowly there is starting to have more uncut men in pornos possibly because of the increase in Privates and other European titles that flooded the US lately Well this might be a question to all the women here. Ladies, do you prefer men who are circumcised or uncirmucised? I am aware this is a US orientated site and attitudes to circumcision are more favourable, though I am interested to know if broadminded women here who are interested in watching porn has an opinion. Thanks Highlander Topic Moved by - steph on Jan 5 2003 [Link]
tina tyler Mercenary Pictures 466 Posts 2/00	Posted - Jan 4 2003 : 10:57PM UNcut is definately my preference... for too many reasons to list. [Link]
tricia_devereaux Evil Angel DVD Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00	Posted - Jan 4 2003 : 11:31PM I've always preferred the look and feel of circumsised. [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 1:54AM After millions of years of evolution the foreskin hasnt dropped off has it? If nature gave the penis a foreskin than it must have some sort of sexual benefits for both male and female. Many women had claimed that intercourse was much better when there is a foreskin as it assist in penetration and help movement inside the vaginal walls like each thrust or pull back becomes a double thrust and pull. I was also surprised that men who are circumcised at birth had lost sensitivity to half of the shaft and the frenulum, there is a lot of sensitive flesh under the foreskin and the frenulum has even more nerve endings than the glans, being uncut I would hate now to lose sensitivity to these parts its almost like for a woman losing her labia majora and clitoral hood. This probably explains why in US porn during fellatio there are just sucking and littel else beside while in European porns they not only suck but do a lot of licking and other variations. Highlander [Link]
horny_1 Member Cali 215 Posts 8/01	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 2:40AM Interesting, makes me think. Edited by - horny_1 on 1/5/2003 2:40:30 AM [Link]

Chillin Member San Diego 208 Posts 9/01	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 5:00AM highlander wrote: After millions of years of evolution the foreskin hasnt dropped off has it? If nature gave the penis a foreskin than it must have some sort of sexual benefits for both male and female. Click to expand I was under the impression that the current evolutionary theory for foreskin was simply to protect the penis from being scratched/scraped when out hunting or whatever it was people used to do prior to modernization ? Bing a guy tho, I'm glad I'm cut...uncicumsized looks so, icky.. Chillin.. [Link]
vodka tonic coolest cucumber who 1243 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 6:35AM Uncut at rest looks more beautiful to me, it just adds a little volume to these teeny-weenie things. i should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky [Link]
Kelly Steele Member 20 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 10:40AM I have enjoyed both cut and uncut penis. However, if I had to state a preference its for the look and feel of the circumsized male. On most circumsized males I can feel the ridge of the penis head slidding in and out of me. I guess a cut cock is more kosher for me. Kelly www.kellysteele.com [Link]
MLyons Senior Member 1617 Posts 8/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 10:46AM As a male... and on a personal note... I was cut as a baby. I wish I had been given the choice. At this point in my life, I kind of wish I hadn't been cut. ::shrug:: Mike L. [Link]
lindi Senior Member 12345 3205 Posts 9/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 10:58AM Please read the comments by Pontus Maximus on the second page of this thread. Also some interesting stuff on this thread - regrow your foreskin. I am used to, and love, circumcised dicks, but if I had been raised where they were uncut, I'm sure that would be my preference. I would never want a guy to give up significant sexual sensation to be circumcised. If I had a son, I would not feel ethically empowered to choose that for him. I hope circumcision goes the way of footbinding. [Link]
MLyons Senior Member 1617 Posts 8/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 11:23AM Thanks Lindi, I had seen both those threads before, but I never saw Pontus' comments. That Pontus--he is really a great contributor to ADT. I always enjoy reading his posts. As a prospective parent, I am definitely against circumcision. I mean, I'll allow my kids to make up their own minds when the time comes, but I really do wish that I hadn't been, and that bias will be known to my kids as they grow up. As for regrowing... I'm just not that outraged, but it certainly is interesting. Don't mean to hijack highlander's thread. Just felt like commenting. :) Mike L. Edited by - MLyons on 1/5/2003 11:24:28 AM [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 1:07PM Being born in the US of A, I was circumcised at birth, so I can't define a difference based on experience. However, although it might (or might not) be good for my partner, it takes intense stimulation for me to reach orgasm, leading me to believe that there must have been some nerve damage and a correspondent loss of sensation as a result of the operation. The intensity of my orgasms has never been an issue, although, again, I have no way of knowing. The first uncut cock I ever saw was that of a classmate who moved to my (small, southern) hometown from Germany. It looked strange because it was different but I never got a closer look than from across the locker room in gym class. That I was even interested would probably have gotten me beaten to a pulp by other classmates had they known of my interest. My first physical encounter with an uncut cock was in college: my first boyfriend. Our first sexual experience together included something he called "docking" - he stretched his ample foreskin such that it covered the heads of both of our erect cocks and held it tightly while he jacked us both off. That was one time where mental stimulation more than made up for any physical sensation I may lack. I was hooked on hooded cock forever! As it is the norm in the United States, most of the men with whom I've had relationships or affairs have been circumcised; however, my preference is definitely for uncut cock. Foreskin is, if nothing else, one more ultra sensitive toy with which to play! ~ GaySatyr Edited by - GaySatyr on 1/5/2003 1:09:53 PM [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 2:53PM lindi wrote: I am used to, and love, circumcised dicks, but if I had been raised where they were uncut, I'm sure that would be my preference. I would never want a guy to give up significant sexual sensation to be circumcised. If I had a son, I would not feel ethically empowered to choose that for him. I hope circumcision goes the way of footbinding. Click to expand Lindi is right, if women is raised in an environment were guys are uncut its only natural that she would prefer it that way. However I also spoken to women from the US whose husband and sons were circumcised that when she had sex with lovers who was uncut she realise it was much better. I agree that its upto the child, the person that really matters, to decide if he should be circumcised and only after he is 18yrs old. Can you imagine there would be an uproar if female circumcisions is commonly practiced in a civilised society, the operation is no different for male and female in that it removes sensitive skins and exposes the internal organs, all the health reasons are unsupported because you dont cut off your ears in fear of ear infections, and circumcision should NOT be made for the sake of fashion but only if there is complication on medical ground which is rare. I heard from a Canadian documentary that circumcision is a big money spinning enterprise, surgery which performs the procedures sells the skins to companies for big bucks which manufatures skins for the medical establishment (to treat burns or skin graft, cosmetics, etc), each foreskin can be grown to cover the size of a football field. Cant help feeling that cirmcumcised males are being exploited for profits, I wonder if circumcision would still be as eagerly performed if the patients or parents demand to keep the foreskins? Highlander PS. I find it really odd that circumcised men has no frenulum, its like for a vagina without a clitoris because both of these parts has the same effect on sexual arousal, its mutilation without this organ. Edited by - highlander on 1/5/2003 3:17:25 PM [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 3:13PM MLyons wrote: Don't mean to hijack highlander's thread. Just felt like commenting. :) Mike L. Click to expand No problem Mike, its an important issue and something I dont see the act as benificial but peoples opinion is welcome. I would also point out the question of consent, no one has the right to decide what or how your body looks like especially if it involves surgical alteration. If I woke up one morning and found that I had been circumcised by my girlfriend because she likes the look of a cut dick I would murder her without second thoughts. Its not right for anyone to violate and mutilate against you and your body so its no more right to perform circumcision on a child who couldnt say "no" and screams "its painful" when he is a few months old. I would also add that according to medical research men who are circumcised at birth are more sensitive to pain or fear of pain than uncut men, its may be to do with psychological effect of pain on a young child going through the surgery that always remain throughout his life but cannot recall the experience. Sounds like people who suffered abuse in hise/her life and somehow developed a phobia. Highlander Edited by - highlander on 1/5/2003 3:26:23 PM [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 6:57PM Highlander writes: "I find it really odd that circumcised men has no frenulum, its like for a vagina without a clitoris because both of these parts has the same effect on sexual arousal, its mutilation without this organ." That's really apples to oranges. I can assure you that the circumsized men I have had sex with were very aroused and did not appear to suffering from any so-called mutilation or loss of sensation. I've only been with one uncircumcized guy, but I can tell you that there was virtually no difference in sensation to me. In fact, he could last longer than a lot of circumcized guys, so I wouldn't say that he was any more or less sensitive either. When erect, the penis is the same, it's only in the flaccid state that you could even tell the difference, although I believe most females prefer circumcized. I do. There's also too much emphasis put on this procedure as traumatizing and painful for babies. They DO use an anethestic, and babies do not have fully developed nerve endings. What's next, leaving the umbilical cord 'uncut'? They do not feel pain nearly as intensely as a fully grown man would, so leaving this decision to him, while the heart is in the right place, is tantamount to choosing for him to be uncircumcized. There are more and more health issues coming out regarding that. Circumcision is known to reduce the risk of HIV infection. Circumcision Curbs Cervical Cancer Risk. BBC News, April 10, 2002. There's pros and cons to both sides of the issue, and most major medical centers just leave it to the parents, not taking a stand one way or another. I don't understand why so many uncircumsized guys have a need to try and make circumcized males feel badly or that they've been 'mutilated' or missing something. Other than that sad case of the guy trying to grow skin back, it seems to me that they're doing just fine. Here's a great site for unbiased information, to quote: "If you've been surfing the net to find information on the topic of male circumcision you have probably come across many anti circumcision web pages and very few that tell the other side of the story." - CIRCUMCISION INFORMATION EXPLAINED BY DOCTORS, MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND RESEARCHERS [Link]

highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 1:42AM Dumblonde, While I understood what you are saying an for you as a woman that you dont experience any different if the men are cut or uncut, I can assure you that having a foreskin do have more sensation for the men. No one is saying that cut men has none or very little sensation that would make them have difficulty enjoying sex, but it is true that they no longer experience the level of sensation that uncut men normally has. When an uncut male gets aroused the skin pulls back and over half the shaft along with the head becomes a sensitive organ that feels all kinds of sexual stimulants, then there is the frenulum which is like a V6. Circumcision for male and female (if done properly) are very similar in that it removes flesh that has nerve endings for sexual pleasures. You cant really say that men who are uncut last longer than those who are or vice versa, its down to the individual and how he choses to control his orgasm. I am not trying to make cut men feel bad but its important for people to realise what has happened. The health reason about HIV and cancer risk only contribute a small increase, some 80+% of American men are cicumcised but HIV and cervical cancers there are amongst the highest in the world. Sex itself is a risk and is something we all need to take precaution regardless if men are cut or uncut. A have seen a child going through circumcision and only very good surgeon can reduce the pain, in that case even with anesthetic and some don't use it, the child scream in pain like a pig being butchered, its a horrible experience that lives with you. Highlander [Link]
tricia_devereaux Evil Angel DVD Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 2:13AM highlander wrote: the child scream in pain like a pig being butchered, its a horrible experience that lives with you. Click to expand There are good points on both sides. I hate to say it, but if you use the above reason as an argument against cirumcision, then you would have to use it as an argument against vaccinations and drawing blood on infants too, because my daughter sounded pretty much just like that every times she's gotten immunizations. It's been shown that infants are very resilient to traumas they go through during the first year of life. [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 2:41AM tricia_devereaux wrote: There are good points on both sides. I hate to say it, but if you use the above reason as an argument against cirumcision, then you would have to use it as an argument against vaccinations and drawing blood on infants too, because my daughter sounded pretty much just like that every times she's gotten immunizations. It's been shown that infants are very resilient to traumas they go through during the first year of life. Click to expand We like to think that but how much do we really know? a 6 yr old can say "no, this hurts" but a few months old baby only know how to scream! Generally people never able to recall events that happened in their first year of life mainly because the brain has still got more to develop to be concious of that, however the feeling of pain are always there and medical research does shows cicumcised male are more vulnerable to fear of pain than the pain itself. To tell you about my own experience when was a year old I had an injection by some primitive needle or device at a poor hospital aand it left an infllamation on the skin on my left leg, when I was 3yrs old I asked my parents how that happend they say I screemed like hell when I had it done, although it wasnt painful now I always feel an pain more psychological than anything, everytime if I am not aware and someone touches my left leg I react like an abuse dog, there is no pain on my leg but I could sense it. I can understand why the research had prove this case. Highlander [Link]
menace Member Of all the fishes in the sea, the mermaid is the one for me! 410 Posts 6/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 3:07AM I fully agree that routinely cutting is wrong. I'd rather the reverse was true in the US. But, for those of you who want your male children to make their own decision, be forewarned that as you get older, it's not a fun operation. I had to have it done when I was 11-& man, does it hurt while it's healing. I had no choice, my foreskin was way too tight. I still remember how extremely sensitive the head was, even though I was only 11. At least I had it done before puberty so I didn't have to worry about aggravating the pain when I thought about girls! If I could avoid it rubbing against my pants, it was not as bad. I knew a guy who had it done as an adult in the Navy-man, he was miserable! I truly felt his pain. In retrospect, like Pontus, I wish something had been done just to loosen the foreskin a little, rather than getting the whole thing snipped off. Edited by - menace on 1/6/2003 3:25:01 AM [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 3:55AM My brother had his foreskin loosen when he was 10, like you he was too tight but there is such an operation and easily done, maybe in the UK they dont see the need to cut off he foreskin unlike USA. Could it be that they want to sell your skin for profit? Highlander [Link]
menace Member Of all the fishes in the sea, the mermaid is the one for me! 410 Posts 6/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 4:58AM A great many MD's in the US happen to be Jewish. This could very well be a major factor in the widespread US practice of circumcision at birth. Nothing malicious on their part, I'm sure, just normal procedure. [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 7:48AM menace wrote: A great many MD's in the US happen to be Jewish. This could very well be a major factor in the widespread US practice of circumcision at birth. Nothing malicious on their part, I'm sure, just normal procedure. Click to expand It may be normal procedure to them but its one of ignorant. We are not all Jewish or Muslims and circumcision is not a decision to be taken as normal procedure. [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 10:05AM Circumcision is common in the US because it was thought to promote cleanliness and health. And I may be wrong, but many Jewish rituals like this were in place for the same reasons. Doctors being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Doctors do not make those kinds of decisions. Jews are a tiny portion of the population in the US. For a long time we lived in an age where we turned to Western medicine and surgery for all our health needs/advice. That is changing. People are looking to herbs, massage, acupuncture, yoga, etc. People are questioning Western medicine, which was once near God-like status. Unlike some countries, most babies in the US are born in hospitals. Therefore, practices like circumcision are going to be more common. I've only been with one uncircumcised man, and while he told me he kept it clean, it wasn't. So in my limited experience I prefer circumcised. [Link]
blklthrjkt Passionfruit Video Dallas 105 Posts 7/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 10:10AM Just to chime in on the health note, there are several recent studies which show that the men with foreskin are more likely to contract HIV than me without foreskin having unprotected sex with women. Apparently there are special cells in the foreskin that are designed to detect possible pathogens before they reach the body, and since HIV is a patricularly nasty virus, it uses these cells for quick entry into the body. Kurt [Link]
Mat Member UK 12 Posts 1/03	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 11:35AM Hmmmm , as an Uncut male I really considered before posting how much of a bias that would make to my reply. On the preference of women , I really think we covert what we see most, and I dont think that being cut or uncut is particually better or worse. Its a balance. However I personally feel that circumsising children is wrong. I think performing a 'body modification' to someone without there consent or understanding, really isnt something that should be promoted. I dont like it either to see small 2 year old girls in prams with there mothers, and you notice suddenly that they little girl already has pierced ears. Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -CS LEWIS [Link]

Evil_Rip Senior Member Power overwhelming 1117 Posts 12/99	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 11:52AM Children do feel pain. I do not see where this notion of Baby's not having fully developed nerve endings comes from. If you pinch does it not cry? From: http://babyparenting.about.com/library/blinfantpain.htm There has been considerable debate over the existence of pain in newborns and its management. As late as the mid- 1980's, surgery was performed on infants without benefit of anesthesia, the belief being that even if babies did experience pain, they would forget about it. Since then, studies of the biological response to pain and the facial expressions of newborns during traumatic procedures document that they do indeed respond to pain. Today, pain from traumatic surgeries in newborns is carefully managed with anesthesia and analgesics. Scientists have learned that by 24 weeks gestation, very immature pain transmission pathways are already in place. The development of these pathways continues postnatally. What newborns lack are fully developed and functional pain inhibitory systems . These typically develop several weeks after a full-term baby is born. "Unlike other sensory modalities such as vision and hearing that require the input of sight and sound for their appropriate development, pain pathways normally develop in the absence of, or with little exposure to, painful stimulation. However, medical procedures shortly after birth can expose the nervous system to pain, the developmental effects of which we are just learning," said Dr. Ruda. They can feel pain. What they can't do is repress that pain like we adults can. For all those that are pro-Surgery. Ask yourself why? Don't just say that's what you prefer. Think deep down. Is it because that is what you know and are comfortable with. Or is there some other motivation you have to see surgery performed on children. [Link]
Manetho71 Member 185 Posts 9/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 3:45PM As a circumsized guy, let me just chime in and say that I'm just fine with my penis the way that it is. It seems that for those who are anti-circumcision, they have two main arguments against it: first, sexual sensation is better for an uncut penis, and secondly, circumcision is a painful and unfair form of child mutilation. First of all, I've never suffered from feeling a lack of sensation; of course, I don't know if sensation is stronger for uncircumsized penises, but what I don't know doesn't hurt me. Also, since I live in the U.S. and more women seem to prefer cut here, perhaps my partners are more satisfied as well. As to the second point, as far as I can tell, I don't suffer from any psychological damage as a result of this procedure I had done when I was nearly a week old. I don't mind that my parents didn't wait until I was old enough to give them my own opinion. I also think it's ludicrous to compare male foreskin circumcision to female clitoral mutilation. Male circumcision is done for any number of reasons (health, cultural, religious, etc.) while female mutilation is a repressive procedure done for the sole purpose of denying women sexual pleasure. I also have to take a strong stand against both Menace and Highlander's assumption that circumcision might be common in the U.S. because "A great many MD's in the US happen to be Jewish." You're walking on very shaky ground here. The population of Jews in the U.S., as Steph pointed out, is tiny compared to the rest of the nation, and you'll find their numbers small compared to the rest of the nation in the medical profession as well. By your logic, most babies in the U.S. would be baptized because most doctors are of various Christian faiths. Also, don't assume that Jewish doctors would put their own personal beliefs (and they certainly aren't uniform in their beliefs) before the tenets of the medical ethics and norms they swore to practice by. As far as I know, it's still up to the parents to decide whether to have their child circumcized, not the doctor. [Link]
P-Knuckle Member 309 Posts 11/01	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 5:37PM Ok, the intial question asked, 'cut or uncut,' has nothing to do with what is being discussed here anymore. So my question is, why ask the question at all if you have the answer you already believe is true? I don't feel like you (highlander) care what women prefer, it feels more like you have an agenda against foreskin removal and you want people to agree with you to further your feelings of bias towards those that are circumsized. You asked this question- 'Ladies, do you prefer men who are circumcised or uncircumcised?' But it seems more like you are concerned about it being genital torture and pressing this issue. So maybe a re-phrasing of the question would make more sense, like, 'is circumcision forced societal torture?' But to disguise your agenda seems strange. If you ask women what they want and then argue why they might be wrong, as you did with Smarty Blonde, I don't see what point you are getting at. Why am I mad at the tone of your posts? Maybe its because I am one of those 'jews' who must be plotting to cut off all the genitals of your children. And then what was the comment about them being sold for profit? Yup, its also about the money I assure you. You should see all the riches I have obtained from the foreskin business. 'It may be normal procedure to them but its one of ignorant.' Do you really think that because a Jew might be a doctor that they automatically circumsize a child? And also, what exactly does 'one of ignorant' mean? Edited by - P-Knuckle on 1/6/2003 5:44:39 PM [Link]
menace Member Of all the fishes in the sea, the mermaid is the one for me! 410 Posts 6/02	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 8:02PM It seems that some people managed to misconstrue my comments as anti-Semitic, or that circumcision was some sort of Jewish plot. I was attempting to add to the discussion of why circumcision is widespread in the US. A few points: 1.Although Jews represent approx. 2% of the US population, it is estimated that from of US doctors are Jewish. A very impressive proportion. 2. The start of widespread practice of circumcision in the US (mid 19th century) was justified as a means to curb masturbation, & was rooted in religion. The cleanliness/health aspects came later. 3. Christianity is rooted in Judaism & Christians are strongly influenced by Jewish traditions. Islam also has some Jewish roots. 4. People consult their doctors when faced with any medical procedure, they rarely make decisions on their own. Even though the doctor is a scientist & has oaths to uphold, it’s quite possible that (Jewish or Christian-or Muslim) doctors may, unconsciously, let their religious upbringing affect their advice to patients or parents. Edited by - menace on 1/6/2003 8:08:15 PM [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 10:07PM I think one additional point needs to be made here: the wide-spread decision to circumcise males at birth in the USA was originally made with good intentions for those male babies' best interest, based on then current societal & Judeo-Christian mores and nineteenth century science. No one should be blamed. Society has changed and science has advanced. Unfortunately, tradition lags well behind. ~ GaySatyr PS - this is my 666th post! The devil made me do it! Edited by - GaySatyr on 1/6/2003 10:10:05 PM [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 12:51AM To answer some of my critics here, yes I agree I had perhaps deviate from my original question about what women thinks here, its an issue important enough to debate why the practice continue when the benefit are at best trivial at what cost? Also as this site may be US based it appears that contributers comes from around the world and there is also opinions for and against in US as in anywhere else (interesting). I did not stated to blame the Jews I was merely answering to an opinion as to a possible reason why the practice has been so widespread, Menace do have a point about the medical profession were its origin based on religion and a culture of curbing masturbation was responsible for circumcision even though today the practice has a different meaning on the ground of health. I dont think the ground on health for reason of circumcision really a good excuse, as I point out the US has the highest rate of HIV and cicumcision on the majority of the male did not exactly eradicate the disease. There was a case were a woman had an hystorectomy to remove her healthy organ because someone close has died of ovarian and cervical cancers, do we chop off every limps and body parts that has potential to harm us? If people are happy about themselves being circumcised then good for you, afterall I wont tell someone born blind that he has lost something that he never had the chance to appreciate in the first place. I also dont agree that female circumcision is any different fundamentally from male circumcision, both operation is aimed at reducing sexual sensitivity, did anyone read about a certain Mr Kellog's 18th century writings which he recommend circumcision on boys who masturbated to curb his "evil" habits? At the end of the day its a genital for goodness sake, this is how nature intended can we not leave it as it should? Highlander Edited by - highlander on 1/7/2003 1:04:35 AM [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:08AM highlander wrote: ... did anyone read about a certain Mr Kellog's 18th century writings which he recommend circumcision on boys who masturbated to curb his "evil" habits? Click to expand What's more, he recommended that the operation be performed sans anesthesia! OUCH! Actually, the Kellogg cereal empire (corn flakes) was designed to reduce masturbation & sexuality as well (so were Graham crackers); however, it was in the late 19th century (1801-1900) rather than in the 18th century (1701~1800) that Dr Kellogg, his brother and cohorts held reign. ~ GaySatyr [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:27AM Steph-I hope your one bad experience with an uncut man dont put you off uncut men altogether. Yes personal hygiene is important and if you wash regularly as you should then there is no problem. I would also say that uncut men has moisture around their penis since the foreskin produces and maintains it, it will have taste and some scent too. Cut men does not usually has moisture or even much of the taste and scent, ok some people may prefer this and some may not but then again the vagina has moisture and scents so should a penis. An organ use for copulation should have moisture, surely that is how nature intended. One doesnt need to spit on there hands and rub on their dick everytime intercourse takes place. I also ask the question if women had sex with as many uncut as there are cut men would they prefer one over the other? As I had stated earlier in many Euro porn the fellatios are performed much more differently with more variations, the flick of the tongue on the frenulum, the licking of the shaft, tongue going clockwise and anticlockwise around the ridge of the glans, sucking the shaft and then sucking the head while able to masturbate the shaft at the same time, all the time with maximum sensitivity that makes the guys squirm! Highlander [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:29AM GaySatyr wrote: Actually, the Kellogg cereal empire (corn flakes) was designed to reduce masturbation & sexuality as well (so were Graham crackers); however, it was in the late 19th century (1801-1900) rather than in the 18th century (1701~1800) that Dr Kellogg, his brother and cohorts held reign. ~ GaySatyr Click to expand Sorry, i meant to say 19th century [Link]
Mythsong Member 306 Posts 8/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 10:54AM 1. I think that womens' enjoyment of an absent vs. present foreskin is a personal one and cannot really be made into an objective statement. (Unless some kind of poll is conducted which would let you know regional/national tendencies.) I don't think that any kind of response here should be used as "evidence" one way or the other. 2. The fact that there are more circumcised men in US movies (as opposed to those out of Europe) may have nothing to do with preference but, as has been stated, general medical policy. 3. Regardless of whether circumcised or non-circumcised is "better" (and I don't think that one can ever be "better" than the other), I DO disagree with circumcision at childhood for the same reason that I disagree with childhood gender reassignment. I think that such a personal life-style change should be made by a fully consenting individual. While I don't fault the parents' decision of the surgery being in what they consider to be the child's best interest, it is, pretty much, irreversible and the child is "stuck with it" for the rest of their life. There are cases of "sexually ambiguous" infants whose parents had doctors operate on them to "make them" one sex or the other - and these infants have later grown into adults and expressed their wish that they had been left alone because they would have been far happer being "who they were". (Others get sexual reassignment surgery of their own choice later on in life - so I'm not saying that the surgery is wrong, just that it should be the individual's choice.) 4. I get the sense (although I have no statistics to back this up) that the circumcision rate of infants is slowly dropping off in favour of letting the child choose when he grows up. 5. More uncircumcised men in American adult movies may have absolutely nothing to do with the number of uncircumcised men in the US changing. It may simply be a change in policy / perception on the part of producers and studios, and the anatomical state of men that they're willing to cast. BTW: Personally, I am uncircumcised and am happy with that state of affairs. However, I'm sure I'd have been equally happy if I'd grown up circumcised. Similarly, I'm happy being male, but would undoubtedly have lived a happy and productive life if I'd been born a girl. Or if I'd had a different skin colour, been raised in a different country, spoke another language, and so on. Edited by - Mythsong on 1/7/2003 3:34:49 PM [Link]

highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 11:07AM Mythsong, I agreed with what you said on points 2-5, its a practical common sense that surgery that is neother life threatenig nor necessary but has profound implication on a person's life should by a a decision exclusive to the person recieving the operation and only after he/she at the age of consent. Point 1) is not an easily achieved since women who are obnly accustomed to either cut or uncut men would vote with what they are use to, unless you could gather a data from a substantial number of women who had sex with equal number of cuts and uncuts men. I should imagine that most European women would like men to be natural and most US women would like it cut. Highlander [Link]
Evil_Rip Senior Member Power overwhelming 1117 Posts 12/99	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 11:33AM Highlander and the rest... your poll wouldn't be valid. You are forgetting to include other factors that may influence the enjoyment of sex. This preference issue can't be resolved, just like a poll on wheater or not women like Big cocks wouls resolve anything either... [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:29PM Evil_Rip wrote: Highlander and the rest... your poll wouldn't be valid. You are forgetting to include other factors that may influence the enjoyment of sex. This preference issue can't be resolved, just like a poll on wheater or not women like Big cocks wouls resolve anything either... Click to expand A poll is possible but it has to be only for women who has experience on equal number of cut and uncut men, and yes apoll can be conducted for penis size too. Of course other factors of sexual enjoyment is important but you are asking about a specific preference. [Link]
Manetho71 Member 185 Posts 9/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 2:47PM The only thing that I can figure out from this discussion is that highlander prefers uncut penises. [Link]
Mythsong Member 306 Posts 8/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 3:39PM Highlander and the rest... your poll wouldn't be valid. You are forgetting to include other factors that may influence the enjoyment of sex. Click to expand That's like saying that a poll about ANY kind of preference would be invalid (cars, movies, chocolate bars) - yet they happen all the time. Granted there have to be good controls in place, but just because it's about a preference doesn't immediately invalidate it. [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 3:45PM What I see happening on the net and at times here too, is a tendancy to over-dramatize something that's really not that big of a deal. You don't hear circumcized guys complaining much. There's a lot of assumptions that circumcized males are less sensitive, but none of the females including myself have noticed any difference. No one is saying babies do not feel pain. Given what the baby has just been through, its body squeezed through a tube 2" in diameter, out into bright lights, cold, noisy, spanked, separated from mama, it's cord cut, babies are a lot tougher than people are giving them credit for, and snipping a little loose skin that is no longer needed off of his tallywacker is not going to traumatize him. It's not major life-altering surgery. This is a very simple, safe procedure that is being blown way out of proportion with inflammatory words like 'mutilated' and 'butchered'. Leaving this decision up to him for later on however, is not really doing him a favor. One of the benefits of a shaved pussy is how much easier it is to keep clean, and I believe most men prefer this look as well. That's the same reason I prefer a circumcized cock. edit: I just wanted to add that it is by no means a requirement, for the same reasons that size is not that important to me. It's the man that it's attached to. Edited by - dumblonde on 1/7/2003 6:22:00 PM [Link]
P-Knuckle Member 309 Posts 11/01	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 4:32PM I still think that the original question was not the purpose of the post; and if America has the highest rate of HIV then Africa must of not been polled. I have a nagging suspicion that you (highlander) must of had a few women make a comment to you about your uncircumsized member and you want to make a statement as why they are wrong. Your initial post was made, two comments came in stating they prefered circumsized, both from highly esteemed Porno stars and then you fired off your opinion. Don't expect to get the answer you want to a question asked. It doesn't work that way. Imagine If I was a woman with a hairy vagina who made a poll about 'bush vs no bush.' Then, upon hearing peoples' responses, I immediately get defensive and explain why natural bush is 'better.' This kinda gives the reader the impression that I just want to feel good about my own hairpie. And that just seems a tad self-indulgent and pitiful in regards to how you gain acceptance for yourself. Highlander, I think you just feel like ALL WOMAN should love uncircumsized penii. Let them make up their own minds... and you should feel good about whatever you have goin' on regardless of some others opinions'. FLAUNT THAT FORESKIN! [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 9:09PM To my critics, yes I have deviate from my original questions and I make no disguise of this fact, its an important issue. So now some people are turning foreskin verses hair? There is no comparison and its ludicrous that some people here are making such comparison which shows how ignorant those who advocate circumcision really are. True, circumcise guys dont complain something they never had the chance to appreciate whats been taken away as a baby, someone born blind dont regret losing his sight or watch porn. Dumblonde I respect you as a person but as a woman I dont feel that you are qualify to trivialise the practice of male circumcision, it may be a small piece of skin to you so is a labia and clitoral hood to me I dont demand that females should have theirs removed to prevent yeast and STD infection, do you? That is a better analogy than comparing shaved pubic hairs to body altering surgeries. Circumcision on a baby can be a simple procedure but there is no reason to do it, being uncut I am glad the so called "favour" you mentioned is not given to me, oh no thanks, I hate to lose the sensation of a cut dick. A foreskin is inherently parts of a male body that has sexual purposes and not some kind of useless piece of organ that need to be taken away without his consent and before he has the right to say no. There is no crime in letting him made that decision on his 18 birthday and I am sure if the law makes a stand on this everyone will not wants it done and see it as barbaric just like foot binding and female circumcision. P-nuckle, do you know me personally to make personal remarks? I suggest you refrain personal attacks and focus more on the issue. I dont need to "flaunt that foreskin", women in the UK most naturally prefer uncut and know what to do, its normal here. I am making a statement and yes I may have rocked the boat and if that knock confident on men who have been cut then I am sorry but I make no regret in telling the truth. Highlander Edited by - highlander on 1/7/2003 9:23:00 PM [Link]
Mythsong Member 306 Posts 8/02	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:01AM I am sorry but I make no regret in telling the truth. Click to expand That should be "stating your opinion". [Link]
highlander Deactivated User 54 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:36AM When Copernicus using quantifiable method stated that the World is not the centre of the universe and that like every other planets its revolves around the Sun his opinion was attacked no matter how persuasive his evidence could prove it, the establishment, ie the Church, want him burn at the stake for threatening not their religion but their authority and the rubbish they were teaching. I understood old habits die hard and I am not saying you are inferior as a person because you are circumcised, what I had said is are there any need of having its done? Why consent need to be respected and what is really missing from men as a result. Highlander [Link]
YogaGrrl self-removed user 757 Posts 12/01	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:29PM I don't mean to be insensitive, but the question of preferring circumcised or uncircumcised penises never once occurred to me before it was raised here. It has been a total non-issue for me. I grew up in a household where there was no pornography and nobody ever walked around nude. I don't believe I ever saw a real live adult male penis until I met my husband (who was then my boyfriend). I had a vague idea of what to expect because I'd seen a few illustrations in textbooks and also a flash of full frontal male nudity in a mainstream movie (which of course I played over and over on our VCR when no one else was home, straining to get a better look). I was very naive. I still remember how my husband, after over four months of seduction and foreplay, finally took my hand and gently placed it on his erect cock underneath the sheets. I "saw" his penis first with my fingers and only later dared to look at it with my eyes. His penis happens to be circumcised, but that's not exactly something I noticed in the heat of the moment. I thought it was beautiful. I still think so. I've seen a lot more penises on screen now, and I never really notice whether they're circumcised or not. Well, except once. I was looking at one actor's penis (sorry, I don't remember which one), and thought the skin looked a little loose and different. I actually called my husband into the room and asked him if it was a foreskin. He looked only a little less puzzled than me and shrugged and said, "Could be." Maybe it's easier to determine when the penis is flaccid? I don't really know, since flaccid penises are hardly ever shown in porn. All of the sudden, I feel just a little insecure, like maybe I ought to know more about penises and don't. Anyhow, it may work differently for different men, but I can tell you my husband is exquistely sensitive. His challenge has been to learn how to channel and appropriately time that sensitivity so that he doesn't orgasm too quickly. But it's a challenge that he's, ahem, risen to very nicely. [Link]
YogaGrrl self-removed user 757 Posts 12/01	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:30PM (Edit: Hmmm, now I'm not sure if this post actually made sense. I removed it so I can think it through.) Edited by - YogaGrrl on 1/8/2003 4:38:25 PM [Link]
P-Knuckle Member 309 Posts 11/01	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:49PM Highlander, please keep posting. Because the more you type, the more your bias shows. Lets look at this comment- 'women in the UK most naturally prefer uncut and know what to do' I am going to stop with you, its obvious that you don't understand my argument. I got personal because you made this a personal thread rather than the initial question asked. You deviated from the topic, so I asked why? My comparison with the hair poll was to show that you did not care about your intial question and its quite obvious you just want to front an agenda. I was also making a remark that you should be happy with your foreskin, but your not getting it. Keep it up, its amusing. Please tell us more about 'I make no regret in telling the truth.' You seem to know all the answers, so please bless us with the facts. [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 1:47PM Highlander, no one's attacking you. But when you come out making statements that majority of men on this site have been sexually mutilated or are missing something essential, you have to expect some reaction because those are some pretty strong assumptions. If you would read some literature from that link I provided, perhaps this will lessen your concern about the procedure. It's not the butchery that you have in your mind, and your worrying about the circumcized male's sexual enjoyment is appreciated I'm sure, but as you can see, it's unneccessary. [Link]
Mythsong Member 306 Posts 8/02	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 3:23PM When Copernicus using quantifiable method Click to expand Yes, but so far you haven't given any quantifiable evidence for your opinion - you've just stated your opinion and tried to claim it as being the truth. It may be YOUR truth, as you're personally concerned, but without signifcant statistics and case studies (which nobody's yet produced as far as I'm aware) you haven't come close to matching Copernicus' scientific method. (The Church's dogmatic response is a separate issue.) I am not saying you are inferior as a person because you are circumcised Click to expand I'm not circumcised. what I had said is are there any need of having its done? Click to expand Some men prefer it. For them, there is a reason. You can argue that no unnecessary medical procedure be performed on anybody without their consent (I agree with that) but if a grown man, in full possession of his faculties, chooses to have an operation, and likes the results, would you say that he was wrong? Or would you say that a woman is "wrong" if she prefers one thing over another? [Link]
Mythsong Member 306 Posts 8/02	Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 3:30PM It's not the butchery that you have in your mind Click to expand I'm sure that, for many, there is nothing "bad" about being circumcised. Once it's done, it's done, and, in general, life goes on. But for some, it certainly has insulted their sense of individuality and right to personal choice enough that they've taken steps to "correct" what they see as having been a mistake. (Hence the foreskin regrowth techniques seen in another thread.) Also, leaving infants alone is certainly not harmful either. Everything being equal, I think it makes more sense to hold off on any kind of operation and let the boy decide when he's old enough what he wants. Note: There are actually two different debates going on here that have become intertwined in a confusing way. One is whether it's "better" to be circumcised. (I say it's a personal preference and neither state of affairs is better than the other - except, perhaps, for each unique individual.) The other debate is whether infants should have the surgery performed without their consent. (I can't see any really rational argument for this - but I certainly would never stand in the way of what parents wish for their children. I can only state my personal opinion and say that if I had children I would wait until they were older and then ask them.) [Link]

Author

Post

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 4 2003 : 10:48PM

Hi All,
Most porn comming out of USA have men who has no skin on their dicks, being from the UK you can understand I dont easily identify with the male actors on US porn, however I also noticed slowly there is starting to have more uncut men in pornos possibly because of the increase in Privates and other European titles that flooded the US lately

Well this might be a question to all the women here.
Ladies, do you prefer men who are circumcised or uncirmucised?
I am aware this is a US orientated site and attitudes to circumcision are more favourable, though I am interested to know if broadminded women here who are interested in watching porn has an opinion.

Thanks

Highlander

Topic Moved by - steph on Jan 5 2003

[Link]

tina tyler
Mercenary Pictures

466 Posts
2/00

Posted - Jan 4 2003 : 10:57PM

UNcut is definately my preference... for too many reasons to list.

[Link]

tricia_devereaux
Evil Angel DVD

Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous?
4283 Posts
4/00

Posted - Jan 4 2003 : 11:31PM

I've always preferred the look and feel of circumsised.

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 1:54AM

After millions of years of evolution the foreskin hasnt dropped off has it? If nature gave the penis a foreskin than it must have some sort of sexual benefits for both male and female. Many women had claimed that intercourse was much better when there is a foreskin as it assist in penetration and help movement inside the vaginal walls like each thrust or pull back becomes a double thrust and pull. I was also surprised that men who are circumcised at birth had lost sensitivity to half of the shaft and the frenulum, there is a lot of sensitive flesh under the foreskin and the frenulum has even more nerve endings than the glans, being uncut I would hate now to lose sensitivity to these parts its almost like for a woman losing her labia majora and clitoral hood. This probably explains why in US porn during fellatio there are just sucking and littel else beside while in European porns they not only suck but do a lot of licking and other variations.

Highlander

[Link]

horny_1
Member

Cali
215 Posts
8/01

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 2:40AM

Interesting, makes me think.

Edited by - horny_1 on 1/5/2003 2:40:30 AM

[Link]

Chillin
Member

San Diego
208 Posts
9/01

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 5:00AM

I was under the impression that the current evolutionary theory for foreskin was simply to protect the penis from being scratched/scraped when out hunting or whatever it was people used to do prior to modernization ?

Bing a guy tho, I'm glad I'm cut...uncicumsized looks so, icky..

Chillin..

[Link]

vodka tonic
coolest cucumber

who
1243 Posts
11/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 6:35AM

Uncut at rest looks more beautiful to me, it just adds a little volume to these teeny-weenie things.

i should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky

[Link]

Kelly Steele
Member

20 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 10:40AM

I have enjoyed both cut and uncut penis. However, if I had to state a preference its for the look and feel of the circumsized male. On most circumsized males I can feel the ridge of the penis head slidding in and out of me.

I guess a cut cock is more kosher for me.

Kelly
www.kellysteele.com

[Link]

MLyons
Senior Member

1617 Posts
8/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 10:46AM

As a male... and on a personal note... I was cut as a baby. I wish I had been given the choice. At this point in my life, I kind of wish I hadn't been cut.

::shrug::

Mike L.

[Link]

lindi
Senior Member

12345
3205 Posts
9/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 10:58AM

Please read the comments by Pontus Maximus on the second page of this thread.

Also some interesting stuff on this thread - regrow your foreskin.

I am used to, and love, circumcised dicks, but if I had been raised where they were uncut, I'm sure that would be my preference. I would never want a guy to give up significant sexual sensation to be circumcised. If I had a son, I would not feel ethically empowered to choose that for him. I hope circumcision goes the way of footbinding.

[Link]

MLyons
Senior Member

1617 Posts
8/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 11:23AM

Thanks Lindi,

I had seen both those threads before, but I never saw Pontus' comments. That Pontus--he is really a great contributor to ADT. I always enjoy reading his posts.

As a prospective parent, I am definitely against circumcision. I mean, I'll allow my kids to make up their own minds when the time comes, but I really do wish that I hadn't been, and that bias will be known to my kids as they grow up.

As for regrowing... I'm just not that outraged, but it certainly is interesting.

Don't mean to hijack highlander's thread. Just felt like commenting. :)

Mike L.

Edited by - MLyons on 1/5/2003 11:24:28 AM

[Link]

GaySatyr
Senior Member

Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat!
1684 Posts
10/00

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 1:07PM

Being born in the US of A, I was circumcised at birth, so I can't define a difference based on experience. However, although it might (or might not) be good for my partner, it takes intense stimulation for me to reach orgasm, leading me to believe that there must have been some nerve damage and a correspondent loss of sensation as a result of the operation. The intensity of my orgasms has never been an issue, although, again, I have no way of knowing.

The first uncut cock I ever saw was that of a classmate who moved to my (small, southern) hometown from Germany. It looked strange because it was different but I never got a closer look than from across the locker room in gym class. That I was even interested would probably have gotten me beaten to a pulp by other classmates had they known of my interest.

My first physical encounter with an uncut cock was in college: my first boyfriend. Our first sexual experience together included something he called "docking" - he stretched his ample foreskin such that it covered the heads of both of our erect cocks and held it tightly while he jacked us both off. That was one time where mental stimulation more than made up for any physical sensation I may lack. I was hooked on hooded cock forever!

As it is the norm in the United States, most of the men with whom I've had relationships or affairs have been circumcised; however, my preference is definitely for uncut cock. Foreskin is, if nothing else, one more ultra sensitive toy with which to play!

~ GaySatyr

Edited by - GaySatyr on 1/5/2003 1:09:53 PM

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 2:53PM

Lindi is right, if women is raised in an environment were guys are uncut its only natural that she would prefer it that way. However I also spoken to women from the US whose husband and sons were circumcised that when she had sex with lovers who was uncut she realise it was much better.
I agree that its upto the child, the person that really matters, to decide if he should be circumcised and only after he is 18yrs old. Can you imagine there would be an uproar if female circumcisions is commonly practiced in a civilised society, the operation is no different for male and female in that it removes sensitive skins and exposes the internal organs, all the health reasons are unsupported because you dont cut off your ears in fear of ear infections, and circumcision should NOT be made for the sake of fashion but only if there is complication on medical ground which is rare.
I heard from a Canadian documentary that circumcision is a big money spinning enterprise, surgery which performs the procedures sells the skins to companies for big bucks which manufatures skins for the medical establishment (to treat burns or skin graft, cosmetics, etc), each foreskin can be grown to cover the size of a football field. Cant help feeling that cirmcumcised males are being exploited for profits, I wonder if circumcision would still be as eagerly performed if the patients or parents demand to keep the foreskins?

Highlander

PS. I find it really odd that circumcised men has no frenulum, its like for a vagina without a clitoris because both of these parts has the same effect on sexual arousal, its mutilation without this organ.

Edited by - highlander on 1/5/2003 3:17:25 PM

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 3:13PM

No problem Mike, its an important issue and something I dont see the act as benificial but peoples opinion is welcome.
I would also point out the question of consent, no one has the right to decide what or how your body looks like especially if it involves surgical alteration.
If I woke up one morning and found that I had been circumcised by my girlfriend because she likes the look of a cut dick I would murder her without second thoughts. Its not right for anyone to violate and mutilate against you and your body so its no more right to perform circumcision on a child who couldnt say "no" and screams "its painful" when he is a few months old.
I would also add that according to medical research men who are circumcised at birth are more sensitive to pain or fear of pain than uncut men, its may be to do with psychological effect of pain on a young child going through the surgery that always remain throughout his life but cannot recall the experience. Sounds like people who suffered abuse in hise/her life and somehow developed a phobia.

Highlander

Edited by - highlander on 1/5/2003 3:26:23 PM

[Link]

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00

Posted - Jan 5 2003 : 6:57PM

Highlander writes:
"I find it really odd that circumcised men has no frenulum, its like for a vagina without a clitoris because both of these parts has the same effect on sexual arousal, its mutilation without this organ."

That's really apples to oranges. I can assure you that the circumsized men I have had sex with were very aroused and did not appear to suffering from any so-called mutilation or loss of sensation.

I've only been with one uncircumcized guy, but I can tell you that there was virtually no difference in sensation to me. In fact, he could last longer than a lot of circumcized guys, so I wouldn't say that he was any more or less sensitive either. When erect, the penis is the same, it's only in the flaccid state that you could even tell the difference, although I believe most females prefer circumcized. I do.

There's also too much emphasis put on this procedure as traumatizing and painful for babies. They DO use an anethestic, and babies do not have fully developed nerve endings. What's next, leaving the umbilical cord 'uncut'?
They do not feel pain nearly as intensely as a fully grown man would, so leaving this decision to him, while the heart is in the right place, is tantamount to choosing for him to be uncircumcized. There are more and more health issues coming out regarding that.
Circumcision is known to reduce the risk of HIV infection.
Circumcision Curbs Cervical Cancer Risk. BBC News, April 10, 2002.

There's pros and cons to both sides of the issue, and most major medical centers just leave it to the parents, not taking a stand one way or another. I don't understand why so many uncircumsized guys have a need to try and make circumcized males feel badly or that they've been 'mutilated' or missing something. Other than that sad case of the guy trying to grow skin back, it seems to me that they're doing just fine.

Here's a great site for *unbiased* information, to quote: "If you've been surfing the net to find information on the topic of male circumcision you have probably come across many anti circumcision web pages and very few that tell the other side of the story." -
CIRCUMCISION INFORMATION EXPLAINED BY DOCTORS, MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND RESEARCHERS

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 1:42AM

Dumblonde,
While I understood what you are saying an for you as a woman that you dont experience any different if the men are cut or uncut, I can assure you that having a foreskin do have more sensation for the men. No one is saying that cut men has none or very little sensation that would make them have difficulty enjoying sex, but it is true that they no longer experience the level of sensation that uncut men normally has. When an uncut male gets aroused the skin pulls back and over half the shaft along with the head becomes a sensitive organ that feels all kinds of sexual stimulants, then there is the frenulum which is like a V6.
Circumcision for male and female (if done properly) are very similar in that it removes flesh that has nerve endings for sexual pleasures. You cant really say that men who are uncut last longer than those who are or vice versa, its down to the individual and how he choses to control his orgasm. I am not trying to make cut men feel bad but its important for people to realise what has happened. The health reason about HIV and cancer risk only contribute a small increase, some 80+% of American men are cicumcised but HIV and cervical cancers there are amongst the highest in the world. Sex itself is a risk and is something we all need to take precaution regardless if men are cut or uncut.
A have seen a child going through circumcision and only very good surgeon can reduce the pain, in that case even with anesthetic and some don't use it, the child scream in pain like a pig being butchered, its a horrible experience that lives with you.

Highlander

[Link]

tricia_devereaux
Evil Angel DVD

Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous?
4283 Posts
4/00

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 2:13AM

There are good points on both sides.
I hate to say it, but if you use the above reason as an argument against cirumcision, then you would have to use it as an argument against vaccinations and drawing blood on infants too, because my daughter sounded pretty much just like that every times she's gotten immunizations.

It's been shown that infants are very resilient to traumas they go through during the first year of life.

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 2:41AM

We like to think that but how much do we really know? a 6 yr old can say "no, this hurts" but a few months old baby only know how to scream! Generally people never able to recall events that happened in their first year of life mainly because the brain has still got more to develop to be concious of that, however the feeling of pain are always there and medical research does shows cicumcised male are more vulnerable to fear of pain than the pain itself.

To tell you about my own experience when was a year old I had an injection by some primitive needle or device at a poor hospital aand it left an infllamation on the skin on my left leg, when I was 3yrs old I asked my parents how that happend they say I screemed like hell when I had it done, although it wasnt painful now I always feel an pain more psychological than anything, everytime if I am not aware and someone touches my left leg I react like an abuse dog, there is no pain on my leg but I could sense it.
I can understand why the research had prove this case.

Highlander

[Link]

menace
Member

Of all the fishes in the sea, the mermaid is the one for me!
410 Posts
6/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 3:07AM

I fully agree that routinely cutting is wrong. I'd rather the reverse was true in the US. But, for those of you who want your male children to make their own decision, be forewarned that as you get older, it's not a fun operation. I had to have it done when I was 11-& man, does it hurt while it's healing. I had no choice, my foreskin was way too tight. I still remember how extremely sensitive the head was, even though I was only 11. At least I had it done before puberty so I didn't have to worry about aggravating the pain when I thought about girls! If I could avoid it rubbing against my pants, it was not as bad. I knew a guy who had it done as an adult in the Navy-man, he was miserable! I truly felt his pain.
In retrospect, like Pontus, I wish something had been done just to loosen the foreskin a little, rather than getting the whole thing snipped off.

Edited by - menace on 1/6/2003 3:25:01 AM

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 3:55AM

My brother had his foreskin loosen when he was 10, like you he was too tight but there is such an operation and easily done, maybe in the UK they dont see the need to cut off he foreskin unlike USA. Could it be that they want to sell your skin for profit?

Highlander

[Link]

menace
Member

Of all the fishes in the sea, the mermaid is the one for me!
410 Posts
6/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 4:58AM

A great many MD's in the US happen to be Jewish. This could very well be a major factor in the widespread US practice of circumcision at birth. Nothing malicious on their part, I'm sure, just normal procedure.

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 7:48AM

It may be normal procedure to them but its one of ignorant. We are not all Jewish or Muslims and circumcision is not a decision to be taken as normal procedure.

[Link]

Janitor
Retired

Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service.
6409 Posts
11/99

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 10:05AM

Circumcision is common in the US because it was thought to promote cleanliness and health. And I may be wrong, but many Jewish rituals like this were in place for the same reasons. Doctors being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Doctors do not make those kinds of decisions. Jews are a tiny portion of the population in the US.

For a long time we lived in an age where we turned to Western medicine and surgery for all our health needs/advice. That is changing. People are looking to herbs, massage, acupuncture, yoga, etc. People are questioning Western medicine, which was once near God-like status.

Unlike some countries, most babies in the US are born in hospitals. Therefore, practices like circumcision are going to be more common.

I've only been with one uncircumcised man, and while he told me he kept it clean, it wasn't. So in my limited experience I prefer circumcised.

[Link]

blklthrjkt
Passionfruit Video

Dallas
105 Posts
7/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 10:10AM

Just to chime in on the health note, there are several recent studies which show that the men with foreskin are more likely to contract HIV than me without foreskin having unprotected sex with women. Apparently there are special cells in the foreskin that are designed to detect possible pathogens before they reach the body, and since HIV is a patricularly nasty virus, it uses these cells for quick entry into the body.

Kurt

[Link]

Mat
Member

UK
12 Posts
1/03

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 11:35AM

Hmmmm , as an Uncut male I really considered before posting how much of a bias that would make to my reply.
On the preference of women , I really think we covert what we see most, and I dont think that being cut or uncut is particually better or worse. Its a balance.

However I personally feel that circumsising children is wrong. I think performing a 'body modification' to someone without there consent or understanding, really isnt something that should be promoted. I dont like it either to see small 2 year old girls in prams with there mothers, and you notice suddenly that they little girl already has pierced ears.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -CS LEWIS

[Link]

Evil_Rip
Senior Member

Power overwhelming
1117 Posts
12/99

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 11:52AM

Children do feel pain. I do not see where this notion of Baby's not having fully developed nerve endings comes from. If you pinch does it not cry?

From: http://babyparenting.about.com/library/blinfantpain.htm

There has been considerable debate over the existence of pain in newborns and its management. As late as the mid- 1980's, surgery was performed on infants without benefit of anesthesia, the belief being that even if babies did experience pain, they would forget about it. Since then, studies of the biological response to pain and the facial expressions of newborns during traumatic procedures document that they do indeed respond to pain. Today, pain from traumatic surgeries in newborns is carefully managed with anesthesia and analgesics.

Scientists have learned that by 24 weeks gestation, very immature pain transmission pathways are already in place. The development of these pathways continues postnatally. What newborns lack are fully developed and functional pain inhibitory systems . These typically develop several weeks after a full-term baby is born.

"Unlike other sensory modalities such as vision and hearing that require the input of sight and sound for their appropriate development, pain pathways normally develop in the absence of, or with little exposure to, painful stimulation. However, medical procedures shortly after birth can expose the nervous system to pain, the developmental effects of which we are just learning," said Dr. Ruda.

They can feel pain. What they can't do is repress that pain like we adults can.
For all those that are pro-Surgery. Ask yourself why?
Don't just say that's what you prefer. Think deep down. Is it because that is what you know and are comfortable with. Or is there some other motivation you have to see surgery performed on children.

[Link]

Manetho71
Member

185 Posts
9/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 3:45PM

As a circumsized guy, let me just chime in and say that I'm just fine with my penis the way that it is. It seems that for those who are anti-circumcision, they have two main arguments against it: first, sexual sensation is better for an uncut penis, and secondly, circumcision is a painful and unfair form of child mutilation.

First of all, I've never suffered from feeling a lack of sensation; of course, I don't know if sensation is stronger for uncircumsized penises, but what I don't know doesn't hurt me. Also, since I live in the U.S. and more women seem to prefer cut here, perhaps my partners are more satisfied as well.

As to the second point, as far as I can tell, I don't suffer from any psychological damage as a result of this procedure I had done when I was nearly a week old. I don't mind that my parents didn't wait until I was old enough to give them my own opinion. I also think it's ludicrous to compare male foreskin circumcision to female clitoral mutilation. Male circumcision is done for any number of reasons (health, cultural, religious, etc.) while female mutilation is a repressive procedure done for the sole purpose of denying women sexual pleasure.

I also have to take a strong stand against both Menace and Highlander's assumption that circumcision might be common in the U.S. because "A great many MD's in the US happen to be Jewish." You're walking on very shaky ground here. The population of Jews in the U.S., as Steph pointed out, is tiny compared to the rest of the nation, and you'll find their numbers small compared to the rest of the nation in the medical profession as well. By your logic, most babies in the U.S. would be baptized because most doctors are of various Christian faiths. Also, don't assume that Jewish doctors would put their own personal beliefs (and they certainly aren't uniform in their beliefs) before the tenets of the medical ethics and norms they swore to practice by. As far as I know, it's still up to the parents to decide whether to have their child circumcized, not the doctor.

[Link]

P-Knuckle
Member

309 Posts
11/01

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 5:37PM

Ok, the intial question asked, 'cut or uncut,' has nothing to do with what is being discussed here anymore. So my question is, why ask the question at all if you have the answer you already believe is true? I don't feel like you (highlander) care what women prefer, it feels more like you have an agenda against foreskin removal and you want people to agree with you to further your feelings of bias towards those that are circumsized. You asked this question-

'Ladies, do you prefer men who are circumcised or uncircumcised?'

But it seems more like you are concerned about it being genital torture and pressing this issue. So maybe a re-phrasing of the question would make more sense, like,

'is circumcision forced societal torture?'

But to disguise your agenda seems strange. If you ask women what they want and then argue why they might be wrong, as you did with Smarty Blonde, I don't see what point you are getting at.

Why am I mad at the tone of your posts? Maybe its because I am one of those 'jews' who must be plotting to cut off all the genitals of your children. And then what was the comment about them being sold for profit? Yup, its also about the money I assure you. You should see all the riches I have obtained from the foreskin business.

'It may be normal procedure to them but its one of ignorant.'

Do you really think that because a Jew might be a doctor that they automatically circumsize a child? And also, what exactly does 'one of ignorant' mean?

Edited by - P-Knuckle on 1/6/2003 5:44:39 PM

[Link]

menace
Member

Of all the fishes in the sea, the mermaid is the one for me!
410 Posts
6/02

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 8:02PM

It seems that some people managed to misconstrue my comments as anti-Semitic, or that circumcision was some sort of Jewish plot. I was attempting to add to the discussion of why circumcision is widespread in the US.

A few points:
1.Although Jews represent approx. 2% of the US population, it is estimated that from of US doctors are Jewish. A very impressive proportion.
2. The start of widespread practice of circumcision in the US (mid 19th century) was justified as a means to curb masturbation, & was rooted in religion. The cleanliness/health aspects came later.
3. Christianity is rooted in Judaism & Christians are strongly influenced by Jewish traditions. Islam also has some Jewish roots.
4. People consult their doctors when faced with any medical procedure, they rarely make decisions on their own. Even though the doctor is a scientist & has oaths to uphold, it’s quite possible that (Jewish or Christian-or Muslim) doctors may, unconsciously, let their religious upbringing affect their advice to patients or parents.

Edited by - menace on 1/6/2003 8:08:15 PM

[Link]

GaySatyr
Senior Member

Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat!
1684 Posts
10/00

Posted - Jan 6 2003 : 10:07PM

I think one additional point needs to be made here: the wide-spread decision to circumcise males at birth in the USA was originally made with good intentions for those male babies' best interest, based on then current societal & Judeo-Christian mores and nineteenth century science. No one should be blamed. Society has changed and science has advanced. Unfortunately, tradition lags well behind.

~ GaySatyr

PS - this is my 666th post! The devil made me do it!

Edited by - GaySatyr on 1/6/2003 10:10:05 PM

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 12:51AM

To answer some of my critics here, yes I agree I had perhaps deviate from my original question about what women thinks here, its an issue important enough to debate why the practice continue when the benefit are at best trivial at what cost? Also as this site may be US based it appears that contributers comes from around the world and there is also opinions for and against in US as in anywhere else (interesting). I did not stated to blame the Jews I was merely answering to an opinion as to a possible reason why the practice has been so widespread, Menace do have a point about the medical profession were its origin based on religion and a culture of curbing masturbation was responsible for circumcision even though today the practice has a different meaning on the ground of health. I dont think the ground on health for reason of circumcision really a good excuse, as I point out the US has the highest rate of HIV and cicumcision on the majority of the male did not exactly eradicate the disease. There was a case were a woman had an hystorectomy to remove her healthy organ because someone close has died of ovarian and cervical cancers, do we chop off every limps and body parts that has potential to harm us?
If people are happy about themselves being circumcised then good for you, afterall I wont tell someone born blind that he has lost something that he never had the chance to appreciate in the first place. I also dont agree that female circumcision is any different fundamentally from male circumcision, both operation is aimed at reducing sexual sensitivity, did anyone read about a certain Mr Kellog's 18th century writings which he recommend circumcision on boys who masturbated to curb his "evil" habits?
At the end of the day its a genital for goodness sake, this is how nature intended can we not leave it as it should?

Highlander

Edited by - highlander on 1/7/2003 1:04:35 AM

[Link]

GaySatyr
Senior Member

Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat!
1684 Posts
10/00

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:08AM

What's more, he recommended that the operation be performed sans anesthesia! OUCH!

Actually, the Kellogg cereal empire (corn flakes) was designed to reduce masturbation & sexuality as well (so were Graham crackers); however, it was in the late 19th century (1801-1900) rather than in the 18th century (1701~1800) that Dr Kellogg, his brother and cohorts held reign.

~ GaySatyr

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:27AM

Steph-I hope your one bad experience with an uncut man dont put you off uncut men altogether.

Yes personal hygiene is important and if you wash regularly as you should then there is no problem.
I would also say that uncut men has moisture around their penis since the foreskin produces and maintains it, it will have taste and some scent too. Cut men does not usually has moisture or even much of the taste and scent, ok some people may prefer this and some may not but then again the vagina has moisture and scents so should a penis. An organ use for copulation should have moisture, surely that is how nature intended. One doesnt need to spit on there hands and rub on their dick everytime intercourse takes place.
I also ask the question if women had sex with as many uncut as there are cut men would they prefer one over the other? As I had stated earlier in many Euro porn the fellatios are performed much more differently with more variations, the flick of the tongue on the frenulum, the licking of the shaft, tongue going clockwise and anticlockwise around the ridge of the glans, sucking the shaft and then sucking the head while able to masturbate the shaft at the same time, all the time with maximum sensitivity that makes the guys squirm!

Highlander

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:29AM

Mythsong
Member

306 Posts
8/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 10:54AM

1. I think that womens' enjoyment of an absent vs. present foreskin is a personal one and cannot really be made into an objective statement. (Unless some kind of poll is conducted which would let you know regional/national tendencies.) I don't think that any kind of response here should be used as "evidence" one way or the other.

2. The fact that there are more circumcised men in US movies (as opposed to those out of Europe) may have nothing to do with preference but, as has been stated, general medical policy.

3. Regardless of whether circumcised or non-circumcised is "better" (and I don't think that one can ever be "better" than the other), I DO disagree with circumcision at childhood for the same reason that I disagree with childhood gender reassignment. I think that such a personal life-style change should be made by a fully consenting individual. While I don't fault the parents' decision of the surgery being in what they consider to be the child's best interest, it is, pretty much, irreversible and the child is "stuck with it" for the rest of their life. There are cases of "sexually ambiguous" infants whose parents had doctors operate on them to "make them" one sex or the other - and these infants have later grown into adults and expressed their wish that they had been left alone because they would have been far happer being "who they were". (Others get sexual reassignment surgery of their own choice later on in life - so I'm not saying that the surgery is wrong, just that it should be the individual's choice.)

4. I get the sense (although I have no statistics to back this up) that the circumcision rate of infants is slowly dropping off in favour of letting the child choose when he grows up.

5. More uncircumcised men in American adult movies may have absolutely nothing to do with the number of uncircumcised men in the US changing. It may simply be a change in policy / perception on the part of producers and studios, and the anatomical state of men that they're willing to cast.

BTW: Personally, I am uncircumcised and am happy with that state of affairs. However, I'm sure I'd have been equally happy if I'd grown up circumcised. Similarly, I'm happy being male, but would undoubtedly have lived a happy and productive life if I'd been born a girl. Or if I'd had a different skin colour, been raised in a different country, spoke another language, and so on.

Edited by - Mythsong on 1/7/2003 3:34:49 PM

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 11:07AM

Mythsong,
I agreed with what you said on points 2-5, its a practical common sense that surgery that is neother life threatenig nor necessary but has profound implication on a person's life should by a a decision exclusive to the person recieving the operation and only after he/she at the age of consent.
Point 1) is not an easily achieved since women who are obnly accustomed to either cut or uncut men would vote with what they are use to, unless you could gather a data from a substantial number of women who had sex with equal number of cuts and uncuts men. I should imagine that most European women would like men to be natural and most US women would like it cut.

Highlander

[Link]

Evil_Rip
Senior Member

Power overwhelming
1117 Posts
12/99

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 11:33AM

Highlander and the rest... your poll wouldn't be valid. You are forgetting to include other factors that may influence the enjoyment of sex.
This preference issue can't be resolved, just like a poll on wheater or not women like Big cocks wouls resolve anything either...

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 1:29PM

A poll is possible but it has to be only for women who has experience on equal number of cut and uncut men, and yes apoll can be conducted for penis size too. Of course other factors of sexual enjoyment is important but you are asking about a specific preference.

[Link]

Manetho71
Member

185 Posts
9/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 2:47PM

The only thing that I can figure out from this discussion is that highlander prefers uncut penises.

[Link]

Mythsong
Member

306 Posts
8/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 3:39PM

That's like saying that a poll about ANY kind of preference would be invalid (cars, movies, chocolate bars) - yet they happen all the time. Granted there have to be good controls in place, but just because it's about a preference doesn't immediately invalidate it.

[Link]

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 3:45PM

What I see happening on the net and at times here too, is a tendancy to over-dramatize something that's really not that big of a deal. You don't hear circumcized guys complaining much. There's a lot of assumptions that circumcized males are less sensitive, but none of the females including myself have noticed any difference.

No one is saying babies do not feel pain. Given what the baby has just been through, its body squeezed through a tube 2" in diameter, out into bright lights, cold, noisy, spanked, separated from mama, it's cord cut, babies are a lot tougher than people are giving them credit for, and snipping a little loose skin that is no longer needed off of his tallywacker is not going to traumatize him. It's not major life-altering surgery. This is a very simple, safe procedure that is being blown way out of proportion with inflammatory words like 'mutilated' and 'butchered'. Leaving this decision up to him for later on however, is not really doing him a favor.

One of the benefits of a shaved pussy is how much easier it is to keep clean, and I believe most men prefer this look as well. That's the same reason I prefer a circumcized cock.

edit: I just wanted to add that it is by no means a requirement, for the same reasons that size is not that important to me. It's the man that it's attached to.

Edited by - dumblonde on 1/7/2003 6:22:00 PM

[Link]

P-Knuckle
Member

309 Posts
11/01

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 4:32PM

I still think that the original question was not the purpose of the post; and if America has the highest rate of HIV then Africa must of not been polled. I have a nagging suspicion that you (highlander) must of had a few women make a comment to you about your uncircumsized member and you want to make a statement as why they are wrong. Your initial post was made, two comments came in stating they prefered circumsized, both from highly esteemed Porno stars and then you fired off your opinion. Don't expect to get the answer you want to a question asked. It doesn't work that way.

Imagine If I was a woman with a hairy vagina who made a poll about 'bush vs no bush.' Then, upon hearing peoples' responses, I immediately get defensive and explain why natural bush is 'better.' This kinda gives the reader the impression that I just want to feel good about my own hairpie. And that just seems a tad self-indulgent and pitiful in regards to how you gain acceptance for yourself.

Highlander, I think you just feel like ALL WOMAN should love uncircumsized penii. Let them make up their own minds... and you should feel good about whatever you have goin' on regardless of some others opinions'.

FLAUNT THAT FORESKIN!

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 7 2003 : 9:09PM

To my critics, yes I have deviate from my original questions and I make no disguise of this fact, its an important issue.
So now some people are turning foreskin verses hair? There is no comparison and its ludicrous that some people here are making such comparison which shows how ignorant those who advocate circumcision really are. True, circumcise guys dont complain something they never had the chance to appreciate whats been taken away as a baby, someone born blind dont regret losing his sight or watch porn. Dumblonde I respect you as a person but as a woman I dont feel that you are qualify to trivialise the practice of male circumcision, it may be a small piece of skin to you so is a labia and clitoral hood to me I dont demand that females should have theirs removed to prevent yeast and STD infection, do you? That is a better analogy than comparing shaved pubic hairs to body altering surgeries. Circumcision on a baby can be a simple procedure but there is no reason to do it, being uncut I am glad the so called "favour" you mentioned is not given to me, oh no thanks, I hate to lose the sensation of a cut dick. A foreskin is inherently parts of a male body that has sexual purposes and not some kind of useless piece of organ that need to be taken away without his consent and before he has the right to say no. There is no crime in letting him made that decision on his 18 birthday and I am sure if the law makes a stand on this everyone will not wants it done and see it as barbaric just like foot binding and female circumcision.
P-nuckle, do you know me personally to make personal remarks? I suggest you refrain personal attacks and focus more on the issue. I dont need to "flaunt that foreskin", women in the UK most naturally prefer uncut and know what to do, its normal here. I am making a statement and yes I may have rocked the boat and if that knock confident on men who have been cut then I am sorry but I make no regret in telling the truth.

Highlander

Edited by - highlander on 1/7/2003 9:23:00 PM

[Link]

Mythsong
Member

306 Posts
8/02

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:01AM

That should be "stating your opinion".

[Link]

highlander
Deactivated User

54 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:36AM

When Copernicus using quantifiable method stated that the World is not the centre of the universe and that like every other planets its revolves around the Sun his opinion was attacked no matter how persuasive his evidence could prove it, the establishment, ie the Church, want him burn at the stake for threatening not their religion but their authority and the rubbish they were teaching. I understood old habits die hard and I am not saying you are inferior as a person because you are circumcised, what I had said is are there any need of having its done? Why consent need to be respected and what is really missing from men as a result.

Highlander

[Link]

YogaGrrl
self-removed user

757 Posts
12/01

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:29PM

I don't mean to be insensitive, but the question of preferring circumcised or uncircumcised penises never once occurred to me before it was raised here. It has been a total non-issue for me.

I grew up in a household where there was no pornography and nobody ever walked around nude. I don't believe I ever saw a real live adult male penis until I met my husband (who was then my boyfriend). I had a vague idea of what to expect because I'd seen a few illustrations in textbooks and also a flash of full frontal male nudity in a mainstream movie (which of course I played over and over on our VCR when no one else was home, straining to get a better look). I was very naive. I still remember how my husband, after over four months of seduction and foreplay, finally took my hand and gently placed it on his erect cock underneath the sheets. I "saw" his penis first with my fingers and only later dared to look at it with my eyes. His penis happens to be circumcised, but that's not exactly something I noticed in the heat of the moment. I thought it was beautiful. I still think so.

I've seen a lot more penises on screen now, and I never really notice whether they're circumcised or not. Well, except once. I was looking at one actor's penis (sorry, I don't remember which one), and thought the skin looked a little loose and different. I actually called my husband into the room and asked him if it was a foreskin. He looked only a little less puzzled than me and shrugged and said, "Could be." Maybe it's easier to determine when the penis is flaccid? I don't really know, since flaccid penises are hardly ever shown in porn. All of the sudden, I feel just a little insecure, like maybe I ought to know more about penises and don't.

Anyhow, it may work differently for different men, but I can tell you my husband is exquistely sensitive. His challenge has been to learn how to channel and appropriately time that sensitivity so that he doesn't orgasm too quickly. But it's a challenge that he's, ahem, risen to very nicely.

[Link]

YogaGrrl
self-removed user

757 Posts
12/01

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:30PM

(Edit: Hmmm, now I'm not sure if this post actually made sense. I removed it so I can think it through.)

Edited by - YogaGrrl on 1/8/2003 4:38:25 PM

[Link]

P-Knuckle
Member

309 Posts
11/01

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 12:49PM

Highlander, please keep posting. Because the more you type, the more your bias shows. Lets look at this comment-

'women in the UK most naturally prefer uncut and know what to do'

I am going to stop with you, its obvious that you don't understand my argument. I got personal because you made this a personal thread rather than the initial question asked. You deviated from the topic, so I asked why? My comparison with the hair poll was to show that you did not care about your intial question and its quite obvious you just want to front an agenda. I was also making a remark that you should be happy with your foreskin, but your not getting it. Keep it up, its amusing. Please tell us more about

'I make no regret in telling the truth.'

You seem to know all the answers, so please bless us with the facts.

[Link]

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 1:47PM

Highlander, no one's attacking you. But when you come out making statements that majority of men on this site have been sexually mutilated or are missing something essential, you have to expect some reaction because those are some pretty strong assumptions.

If you would read some literature from that link I provided, perhaps this will lessen your concern about the procedure. It's not the butchery that you have in your mind, and your worrying about the circumcized male's sexual enjoyment is appreciated I'm sure, but as you can see, it's unneccessary.

[Link]

Mythsong
Member

306 Posts
8/02

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 3:23PM

Yes, but so far you haven't given any quantifiable evidence for your opinion - you've just stated your opinion and tried to claim it as being the truth. It may be YOUR truth, as you're personally concerned, but without signifcant statistics and case studies (which nobody's yet produced as far as I'm aware) you haven't come close to matching Copernicus' scientific method. (The Church's dogmatic response is a separate issue.)

I'm not circumcised.

Some men prefer it. For them, there is a reason.

You can argue that no unnecessary medical procedure be performed on anybody without their consent (I agree with that) but if a grown man, in full possession of his faculties, chooses to have an operation, and likes the results, would you say that he was wrong? Or would you say that a woman is "wrong" if she prefers one thing over another?

[Link]

Mythsong
Member

306 Posts
8/02

Posted - Jan 8 2003 : 3:30PM

I'm sure that, for many, there is nothing "bad" about being circumcised. Once it's done, it's done, and, in general, life goes on. But for some, it certainly has insulted their sense of individuality and right to personal choice enough that they've taken steps to "correct" what they see as having been a mistake. (Hence the foreskin regrowth techniques seen in another thread.)

Also, leaving infants alone is certainly not harmful either. Everything being equal, I think it makes more sense to hold off on any kind of operation and let the boy decide when he's old enough what he wants.

Note: There are actually two different debates going on here that have become intertwined in a confusing way. One is whether it's "better" to be circumcised. (I say it's a personal preference and neither state of affairs is better than the other - except, perhaps, for each unique individual.) The other debate is whether infants should have the surgery performed without their consent. (I can't see any really rational argument for this - but I certainly would never stand in the way of what parents wish for their children. I can only state my personal opinion and say that if I had children I would wait until they were older and then ask them.)

[Link]