Do Women Prefer Cut or Uncut Cocks? (page 2)

Author	Post
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 4:09PM LubeNLuv wrote: The invention of bipedal locomotion made this original need obsolete. Loincloths just improved on the situation. Now we've got Fruit of the Looms in hundreds of colors and styles to celebrate. Click to expand The invention of underwear does not make an essential part of the human sexual anatomy obsolete. Circumcision was never advocated because anyone thought the foreskin was unnecessary. That argument only came later when it was discovered that the medical reasons were fabricated, but many Americans, for some strange reason, still wanted to rationalize keeping it as common practice. It wasn't even that long ago when the medical profession started informing parents that circumcision unnecessary. Before then, parents wouldn't be informed at all. There is a reason that the United States is the only developed country in the world that routinely performs it for non-medical and non-religious reasons. The fact that the foreskin contains nerve endings for pleasure is just an added bonus. Click to expand Darn skippy it's an added bonus. That's why it makes no makes no sense to get rid of it. Still doesn't mean it's "needed," or you'd have millions of circumcised men unable to enjoy sex. Click to expand Of course, circumcized can still enjoy sex. It's just that it's a whole lot different. As for it not being needed, Americans who argue that the foreskin is not needed in favor of male circumcision are really no different from people who argue that the clitoris is not needed in favor of female circumcision (a.k.a. female mutilation). After all, the rationale for getting rid of both was originally the same- to reduce pleasure and limit promiscuity. [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 4:14PM I am with realtip on this, having a real tip is better. Down with ritual male genital mutilation! [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 6:44PM realtip wrote: Of course, circumcized can still enjoy sex. It's just that it's a whole lot different. Click to expand Prove it. As for it not being needed, Americans who argue that the foreskin is not needed in favor of male circumcision are really no different from people who argue that the clitoris is not needed in favor of female circumcision (a.k.a. female mutilation). After all, the rationale for getting rid of both was originally the same- to reduce pleasure and limit promiscuity. Click to expand Nice hyperbole. Nonsense, but nice reach there. [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 9:09PM LubeNLuv wrote: realtip wrote: Of course, circumcized can still enjoy sex. It's just that it's a whole lot different. Click to expand Prove it. Click to expand Nobody can prove this to you, since you have already announced your intention to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with your own opinion. [Link]

LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 10:16PM licker wrote: LubeNLuv wrote: realtip wrote: Of course, circumcized can still enjoy sex. It's just that it's a whole lot different. Click to expand Prove it. Click to expand Nobody can prove this to you, since you have already announced your intention to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with your own opinion. Click to expand Eh, not even close to what I said. But if you intend on trying to convince me that I can't be convinced by evidence that doesn't exist, then I guess you win? I'll agree with any evidence that conclusively proves that the sexual enjoyment/pleasure of a circumcised male is somehow inferior to that of a uncircumcised male. Show it to me. Go ahead....I'll wait. [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 10:42PM LubeNLuv wrote: Show it to me. Go ahead....I'll wait. Click to expand You already have exactly what you just asked for. You stated that it meant nothing to you. Either you don't believe me, in which case there is no point in me telling you anything at all, or you don't understand the words, in which case there is still no point. Really, it doesn't matter. Neither of us can return to his original intact state. We just have to live with it. [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 7:26AM Okay, from the perspective of a gay man who was circumcised at birth.... Regarding the study in Africa where there is a definite reduction in AIDS cases among circumcised men, cleanliness could be a factor. The other things that makes my blood boil is that ALL of the aid provided by the USA for African countries' HIV/AIDS problems REQUIRES teaching abstinence and discouraging the use of condoms. Too bad the African countries aren't in a position to tell the USA to go 'Cheney' themselves. Regarding a partner who is uncut, his foreskin is one more sex toy (I'm assuming excellent hygiene to be a prerequisite). Docking is FUN!!! And although I'm much more top than bottom, I find that anal sex with an uncut partner is much more enjoyable. There is "room" for much more action without skin-to-skin friction at the sphincter because his engorged penis slides easily within the extra sheath; whereas, with a clipped partner, the skin is taut. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 10:10AM licker wrote: LubeNLuv wrote: Show it to me. Go ahead....I'll wait. Click to expand You already have exactly what you just asked for. You stated that it meant nothing to you. Click to expand Licker, you gave my YOUR perspective which is valid and I respect that. YOUR perspective was that you were uncut then, for medical reasons (which you didn't elaborate on), you were cut later in life. And you lost sensitivity. That's hardly conclusive evidence that being cut at birth means a man will enjoy sex LESS than one who is intact. I'll use your own line here....feel free to reject anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. I don't envy any adult male having to choose circumcision in their adult life. Hell, I had a vasectomy and freaked about it. But I'm sorry...you provided an personal anecdote. Not conclusive evidence. [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 11:44AM Wouldn't sensations like sensitivity feel different to different penises anyway? Cut or not? Like having to walk a mile in another man's shoes kind of thing and not as simple as cut or not people being more or less sensitive. I have never seen a scale to express this sort of sensation. There is a pain scale though.... [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:33AM ipop wrote: it only makes sense to avoid having a 'pocket' where bacteria and other viruses can be stored. Click to expand So when are you gonna have your bottom lip trimmed off? Might as well hack off your arms too while you're at it. Armpits seem to be places where bacteria can be stored. Of course, there are always toothbrushes and you can always simply lift up your arms and wash them. And then, you can pull back the foreskin and wash it as well. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:37AM LubeNLuv wrote: But I'm sorry...you provided an personal anecdote. Not conclusive evidence. Click to expand Well, you could ask a tree if a circumcised man enjoys sex less than an uncircumcised man. Unfortunately, I don't think the tree would have a good answer. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:48AM I submit that a good way to see the effects of circumcision for yourself is to watch men masturbate in porn flicks. When you see an uncut European man masturbating to climax, what do you see? Usually, he has a surprisingly loose grip on his cock and is hardly moving his hand at all. It seems foreign to a cut man such as myself that such a small amount of stimulation could cause climax. I've seen uncut European men masturbate to climax using only their thumb and forefinger. I have not seen that often with cut men. When you see a cut man jack off to climax, what do you see? Generally, he has a death grip on it.. He's pumping his fist furiously. The veins in his neck forehead are popping out. It looks downright unpleasant. He pumps and pumps and pumps. He could jack off for 10 minutes just trying to cum if you don't mind watching and waiting. Eventually, he manages to cum and passes out with exhaustion. Now maybe uncut men have just discovered a new technique that us cut men have never managed to find. I think that just maybe sex feels better when you have more nerve endings in your cock. I dunno but that makes a lot of sense to me. Edited by - randomprecision on 8/15/2007 5:57:42 PM [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 8:30AM RandomPrecision wrote: I've seen uncut European men masturbate to climax using only their thumb and forefinger. I have not seen that often with cut men. Click to expand Well spotted RP, I hadn't thought of it as an example but you are right. I used to be able to do that. I can't do it now. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 11:22AM RP, your observations could have as much to do with the blatant over-reliance on viagra in US porn than anything to do with circumcision. If your observations of porn had real-world implications, circumcised males everywhere would need to furiously jerk-off-to-climax as well, correct? That's never been my personal experience during sex. If anything, all you've demonstrated is that in porn, uncut men seem to be able to whack off more efficiently. Which still brings up the question as to why men, cut or uncut, HAVE TO FUCKING WHACK OFF TO CUM WHEN THERE IS A DROP-DEAD GORGEOUS WOMAN'S ASS/MOUTH/PUSSY THERE TO DO THE JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! But that's a discussion for another thread, isn't it? I'm not sure porn is ever going to be a proper sample group for this kind of analysis. And I don't personally want to slo-mo male jack off sequences to do the study either. Edited by - lubenluv on 8/15/2007 11:25:14 AM [Link]

RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:12PM Well, it's been my experience that I can't climax the way those guys apparently do. I've never once in my life been able to cum just using my thumb and forefinger. And I don't use Viagra. [Link]
dmzline Member 43 Posts 8/07	Posted - Aug 16 2007 : 1:18PM Most of this discussion seems off topic, I thought we'd hear from women as to their preference instead of what men think is better. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 16 2007 : 9:28PM Women are free to chime in any time they like. We're just arguing amongst ourselves in the meantime. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 16 2007 : 10:15PM Whaddyamean? All 3 of 'em have already chimed in. Now we just need Steph's opinion to make it complete. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 1:56AM LubeNLuv wrote: Nice hyperbole. Nonsense, but nice reach there. Click to expand Perhaps you'd like to explain that. How is the comparison between male and female circumcision hyperbolic? The sole purpose of the clitoris to induce pleasure during sex. Other than giving the female pleasure, the clitoris has no other use at all. This is no different from the foreskin, which you yourself have called unnecessary. How is one unncessary, but not both, when they both do the same thing? Other than the fact that they practice female circumcision, and we don't, how is this comparison invalid? I remember having this same discussion in a group once. It was amazing how adamantly against female circumcision the women were, while some were completely indifferent to male circumcision. Those who were not indifferent were opposed to both. The same goes for the men, except they were generally at least willing to acknowledge that both are mutilation. This is also perhaps why many women are not quick to give their opinion on the issue of male circumcision. Considering how little most men themselves know about it, it stands to reason that most women would be all the more unknowledgeable about it. RandomPrecision wrote: When you see a cut man jack off to climax, what do you see? Generally, he has a death grip on it.. He's pumping his fist furiously. The veins in his neck forehead are popping out. It looks downright unpleasant. He pumps and pumps and pumps. He could jack off for 10 minutes just trying to cum if you don't mind watching and waiting. Click to expand While I have no knowledge of how circumcized men masturbate (in porn movies, I'm usually fast-forwarding over that part), it stands to reason that what you say is true. After all, to deter masturbation was the whole rationale for circumcision becoming common in the first place. The foreskin does make a difference. It's like saying there's no difference between sex with or without a condom. You definitely know the difference. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 6:39AM ^It's perfectly obvious why it was started. And many people are probably well aware of it and that is why they insist that it continue to be done. That and some backwards religious nonsense. I love the way you can point out something that's perfectly obvious and people will ask you to prove it. Just LOOK! It's not hard. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 9:30AM realtip wrote: The sole purpose of the clitoris to induce pleasure during sex. Other than giving the female pleasure, the clitoris has no other use at all. Click to expand Thank you Dr. Realtip. The "sole" purpose of the clitoris is to give the woman pleasure. This is no different from the foreskin, which you yourself have called unnecessary. How is one unncessary, but not both, when they both do the same thing? Click to expand So Doc.....are you adamant that the "sole" purpose of the foreskin is identical to that of the clitoris? That it's sole purpose is to enable the male to derive sexual pleasure? The reason why I say "prove it" is simple...because people like to just pull factoids out of their ass and proclaim it as documented evidence that they are right. See above for an example. The foreskin has MANY purposes, the vast majority of which are well documented as evolutionary throwbacks. The fact that it serves a sexual function isn't an argument I've engaged in thus far. Proclaiming that being uncut somehow provides an advantage to a male during sexual intercourse is not proven...in fact, I've actually seen studies to the contrary. The only fact I'm arguing is that the removal of the foreskin doesn't doom a person to a life of pleasureless sex and that there's never been a study of any scientific means that has demonstrated a difference in sexual gratification between cut and uncut males. This is a pointless debate without evidence. It's your opinion and mine. You claim you are right and I'm wrong. I claim you've no evidence as we both know none exists. If you find something out there to prove I'm wrong, then do so. And I'm sorry...RP's observations that cut men need to whack off furiously to get an orgasm don't count. I've already proven that wrong. My personal anecdote trumps his personal anecdote. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 5:55PM LubeNLuv wrote: So Doc.....are you adamant that the "sole" purpose of the foreskin is identical to that of the clitoris? That it's sole purpose is to enable the male to derive sexual pleasure? Click to expand How can I be adamant about something I never said? I said that the sole purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure, not the foreskin. In fact, in my first post in this thread, I gave the other purposes of the foreskin. By comparing the two, I simply pointed out their similarities, and why it's an ignorant argument to defend removing either. No one that I know of, including yourself, has ever been able to justify how cutting off one can be wrong, and the other not wrong. By the way, one doesn't have to be a doctor to know this stuff. Everyone should at least be educated about his/her own body. But if you want to hear what an actual doctor has to say about it, here is one. The reason why I say "prove it" is simple...because people like to just pull factoids out of their ass and proclaim it as documented evidence that they are right. Click to expand I don't believe in pulling facts out of my ass. If I weren't educated on the facts, I probably wouldn't be any different than most other people who couldn't care less about this issue, simply because they just don't know what it entails. That being said, you don't have to believe me. If you choose, you may ask any number of doctors, human anatomists, or biologists. That's where I learned about it from. Better yet, you may also go to the library and research the issue. That's what I did. The amount of information you will find is endless compared to anything I could tell you, or what you will read here. But I'm afraid the vast majority of the research will only contradict your viewpoint. The foreskin has MANY purposes, the vast majority of which are well documented as evolutionary throwbacks. Click to expand Really? I've never seen or heard that anywhere before. I'd like to see you prove this. Proclaiming that being uncut somehow provides an advantage to a male during sexual intercourse is not proven...in fact, I've actually seen studies to the contrary. Click to expand Where? The only fact I'm arguing is that the removal of the foreskin doesn't doom a person to a life of pleasureless sex Click to expand Not pleasureless. Less pleasurable. there's never been a study of any scientific means that has demonstrated a difference in sexual gratification between cut and uncut males. Click to expand Read this. The study was performed on men who were circumcized as adults rather than as infants. Nonetheless, the conclusion does not support your opinion. This is a pointless debate without evidence. It's your opinion and mine. You claim you are right and I'm wrong. I claim you've no evidence as we both know none exists. Click to expand There is tons of evidence available if you're willing to consider it. A few small examples have already been provided here, but there is much more out there. It appears that you are the one arguing opinion rather than fact. If you see nothing wrong with circumcision for reasons of personal opinion or belief, then that's one thing and I guess you are entitled to it. But it's ridiculous to argue that the facts are in agreement when they are not. Denial should not be used as a defense mechanism. [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 6:10PM Interesting links, good post realtip. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 6:35PM Not pleasureless. Less pleasurable. Click to expand Second time you've made this ridiculous claim. Again, please cite your reference for this "fact." Read this. The study was performed on men who were circumcized as adults rather than as infants. Nonetheless, the conclusion does not support your opinion. Click to expand Nor does it yours. There is no scientific evidence that males circumcised at birth end up enjoying sexual pleasure less than males who were NEVER cut....and that continues to be your claim...see above for your own words. In fact, there are fairly recent studies that indicate that it amounts to not one iota of difference in overall sexual pleasure. Oh and let's not get into the whole "but my study is right and yours is wrong" debate. I've already posted earlier that unless you know who funded the studies and who benefits from same, very few are totally unbiased. Denial should not be used as a defense mechanism. Click to expand The only thing I can agree with you on here. But to deny something that doesn't exist is what, exactly? Oh yes...I think it's called "reason." Edited by - lubenluv on 8/17/2007 6:51:45 PM [Link]

realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 8:03PM LubeNLuv wrote: Second time you've made this ridiculous claim. Again, please cite your reference for this "fact." Click to expand I'll just repeat your own words to you. First, you agreed that the foreskin contains thousands of nerve ending for pleasure, though you try to trivialize it as just some "added bonus." Then, you acknowledge that the "foreskin has many purposes," though you again claim them as "evolutionary throwbacks"- a claim you have not provided proof for despite being asked. So, if you acknowledge the fact that one of the purposes of the foreskin is to induce sexual pleasure, and has anatomical properties to that effect, does it not then stand to reason that removing it would therefore decrease pleasure? Of course it does. Again, it's like arguing that the removal of the clitoris has no effect. You have not been able to deny that circumcision was performed for any reason other than to deter masturbation, neither have you provided any evidence to support your claim that the foreskin is unnecessary, or that it is any different from female circumcision. You just choose to believe what you believe, which is your decision. When you begin providing evidence for your own opinions on the issue, perhaps I will then feel the need to provide more than what I've already given. In fact, there are fairly recent studies that indicate that it amounts to not one iota of difference in overall sexual pleasure. Click to expand Nowhere in that article does it examine a difference in sexual pleasure. It says that both are the same in temperature, arousal, and skin sensitivity on the glans (of course, the foreskin wouldn't necessarily affect these areas anyway), but not one word is given to indicate that pleasure derived from actual sex is the same. The article also still acknowledges that "the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis." In other words, since circumcized men have no foreskin or the nerve endings that go with it, it's almost impossible to compare anyway. It would be like performing a vision study on the blind. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 18 2007 : 7:45AM realtip wrote: In other words, since circumcized men have no foreskin or the nerve endings that go with it, it's almost impossible to compare anyway. Click to expand Houston, we have liftoff. So then, you acknowledge that since it's impossible to compare cut and uncut men's sexual pleasure, your comments about which male has a higher sense of sexual pleasure are purely opinion and not fact? [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 18 2007 : 9:51AM Can I ask a very simple question LNL? Why does it matter if it makes a difference in sensation or not? The fact remains that they're chopping off a piece of a kid's sexual anatomy before he ever has a chance to make that determination for himself. Now this isn't something that maybe I'd give two shits about except for the fact that I kinda wish I still had my foreskin. Kinda hard to go back now. You don't have to oppose it. I don't care but when you have people telling you they wish they weren't circumcised, how can you support it or argue in favor of it? I don't give a rat's ass if millions of people are happily mutilated. There's the chance they may have grown up and been unhappy about it. The cleanliness thing? We have soap. It was invented a while back. The cancer thing? Ehhh....they say most penile cancer victims are in their 70s. When you're in your 70s, you're at the point where people start to get cancers of various sorts. And that's assuming you even live that long. The AIDS thing? Gimme a break! If neither partner has HIV, it's impossible to transfer so it doesn't matter. Sexually active people who aren't monogamous should be getting regular tests anyway. I believe it's obvious why it is done. It has nothing at all to do with medical reasons or cleanliness. Anybody with a brain could keep it relatively clean if they have easy access to soap and water. Edited by - randomprecision on 8/18/2007 9:51:44 AM [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Aug 18 2007 : 6:50PM RP: good post. As an intact male I totally agree. Sensation aside, there is no reason to mutilate male infants. The practice has it's roots in problems that the modern man simply doesn't face. Edited by - conquistador on 8/18/2007 6:52:20 PM [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 19 2007 : 5:06PM RP: I don't personally oppose circumcision. I am circumcised and I had my son circumcised. My reasons for doing so are my own. I am not pro-circumcision either; I believe it's a personal choice for an adult uncut male and for parents of infant males. I do not assign rights to human infants to make the decisions any more than I assign rights to whether or not they should be "allowed" to be born. For me it was a parental responsibility to make the decision for my son....there are many who would believe a parent should have no such right. I oppose that on mere principle. What I DO oppose is being labeled as a mutilator of infants and being informed that it's a FACT that I can't enjoy sex acts as much as an uncut male when there is ZERO evidence to support this and ZERO cause to label me as a child abuser. Personally, I find most of the foreskin-waving from the anti-circumcision crowd to be outright anti-Semitic, although the vast majority would bristle at my opinion. Of course, I can't prove their intent any more than they can prove their assertions about the differences between cut and uncut males. While people are entitled to opinions, to attempt to convince me with non-existent evidence is laughable. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 19 2007 : 9:46PM LubeNLuv wrote: there are many who would believe a parent should have no such right. Click to expand I am one of those people. Outside of medical or religious reasons (and even religious reasons are questionable), parents shouldn't have any more authority to deprive their infants of their foreskin as they should have to deprive their infants of a finger or a clitoris, or any other essential component of their anatomy. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 19 2007 : 11:27PM Ah so we are back on the foreskin as being "essential" again? I'm alive, enjoy sex and life, healthy and prosperous. Doesn't seem so "essential" to me. Your views differ there, obviously. At any rate, I'm thankful your opinion as one of those "people" is meaningless in the society I live in. My parental rights are not questioned in the matter any more than my rights to intervene in any other medical matter. At least not by anyone who matters. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 20 2007 : 1:44AM It is true that my opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, has no weight in a parent's final decision on the matter. I know this is a sensitive issue for many, but it's a serious one also. I don't believe in depriving anyone of his/her parental rights. However, children have rights also. And in this case, the rights of the child supercedes those of the parent. Having said that, parents are still going to do what they want to do, regardless of whether or not it's proven to be in the best interest of the child. There are cases of parents still insisting on circumcision even after medical professionals have tried convincing them otherwise, especially now that routine practice of the procedure is on the decline. But to keep trying to turn this into a matter of opinion just overlooks the facts. The fact is that there is no reason at all, whatsoever that it has to be done. The only reason it is done is just because parents want it to be done. That's it. It's not that I think my stance on the issue is better than anybody else's. There's just no reason why, in the 21st-century, parents should still be hacking off their childrens' body parts. In fact, the only person whose opinion on the issue should matter is the one who doesn't get to decide because someone else took that power away from him. Just because Dad is happy without his foreskin doesn't mean that the son doesn't want his. My father had to have a surgical procedure in which part of his lung was removed. He has since fully recovered and is back to leading his normal productive life with no problems. That doesn't mean I want my lung cut too. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 20 2007 : 5:30AM LNL - Yeah. OK. I'm antisemitic because I don't think people have a right to lop off a piece of a newborn child's sexual anatomy. You caught me! [Link]
Fausty Member 19 Posts 8/07	Posted - Aug 26 2007 : 8:57PM Men who are not cut, well, their cocks look a bit like anteaters. [Link]

VchaseFan Member Hi there! 24 Posts 9/07	Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 8:58AM As far as women prefering which. I was with a girl who seemed to prefer circumcised, but only because they tended to be cleaner (from her experience). I stay clean, so she had no problem with my anteater. [Link]
Dracula Member Women's necks are too damned sexy for me! 756 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 2:27PM If I had a choice, I would leave that area alone and especially keep cutting tools as far away as possible! But that choice was made for me when I was born and not much I can do about it now. I'm glad to read some prefer the cut look because that's all I have and will ever be there. [Link]
kaiser1one Member Dark Avatar 142 Posts 10/07	Posted - Oct 22 2007 : 11:19PM I'm uncut and I dont have any strange smells down there. IF I have a kid and its a son, HE will have the choice not I. It's his body so he can mutilate it as he sees fit.(NOT calling circumcision mutilation mind you.) About that study in Africa, rather than offering those ppl circumcision they should be teaching them about condom use. [Link]
7_and_a_quarter Member 163 Posts 10/07	Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 9:30AM A girl told me that she was surprised my uncut member didn't have a bad smell. I was perplexed. Do some guys not clean themselves? [Link]
Bornyo Deactivated Member 803 Posts 12/04	Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 10:26AM I think people who don't have their kids circumsized are too cheap to pay the hundred dollars or so it costs. Come on cheapskates- pony up the dough for your sons' sake. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 5:48PM I wonder how much it would cost to have their middle toe CHOPPED OFF? [Link]
7_and_a_quarter Member 163 Posts 10/07	Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 10:34PM Oh yeah, my life would have been so much better if only they had cut off part of my penis when I was a baby. Ugh...now it's just such a labor having to peel the foreskin back and forth. It's a wonder I haven't passed out from exhaustion. [Link]
AztecGold11 Member 514 Posts 8/05	Posted - Oct 29 2007 : 1:42AM Cut Edited by - AztecGold11 on 10/29/2007 1:44:43 AM [Link]
CLAUDIA DOWNS Member 39 Posts 10/07	Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 2:20AM I LOOOOVEEEEEE UNCUT!!! [Link]
7_and_a_quarter Member 163 Posts 10/07	Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 9:10AM CLAUDIA DOWNS wrote: I LOOOOVEEEEEE UNCUT!!! Click to expand Awesome! :) I have to admit, I'm not familiar with your work, but now I'm a fan! ;) And a southern girl, too! [Link]
Bornyo Deactivated Member 803 Posts 12/04	Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 2:03PM ^^^Haha if your parents had cared enough or been able to afford to have you circumsized your screen name would just be "Seven" right now. [Link]
7_and_a_quarter Member 163 Posts 10/07	Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 10:23PM Bornyo wrote: ^^^Haha if your parents had cared enough or been able to afford to have you circumsized your screen name would just be "Seven" right now. Click to expand I don't count the foreskin, baby! ;) [Link]
devinnlane Devinn Lane 429 Posts 1/04	Posted - Nov 2 2007 : 5:33PM Uncut. xoxo Devinn [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 1:50AM LubeNLuv wrote: .... Still doesn't mean it's "needed," or you'd have millions of circumcised men unable to enjoy sex. Show them to me and we can have an interesting debate. Show me a definitive study that proves conclusively that circumcised males derive less pleasure than non-circumcised males from sexual activities and I'd be inclined to believe the loss of foreskin is consequential in any way. But show me a study that conclusively allows to differentiate "pleasure" from one human being to another and I'll laugh. Click to expand Being uncircumcised myself, I can say from my own experience that masturbation is a lot easier and more pleasureable for me when I do it through my foreskin without directly touching my glans. I've tried to roll back my foreskin and masturbate my glans directly, as circumcised men have to do. And it was a horrible experience for me. The only way I could do it relatively well was when I had lots of lubrication. And artificial lubrication is not something I need to put on when I do it through my foreskin. Perhaps this is why a lady doing oral on the guy is so popular nowadays. The mucous membranes of the lady's mouth provide a similar experience to that of a man masturbating himself through his foreskin. And this is how circumcised men compensate and experience some of the sexual pleasure that has been taken away from them. Also, one lady told me that she was pleasantly surprised by the effect my uncircumcised cock had on her pussy during our condomless sex. With every stroke, my foreskin rolled back until it reached its rollback limit, and then it created a sudden drag on her pussy-lips pulling on them, and as she described it 'jerking' her clitoris against her pussy lips and the shaft of my cock. She never had unprotected sex with an uncircumcised man before. And with me she discovered a sexual pleasure that she hasn't known before. Almost every circumcised man is circumcised soon after birth. And circumcised men simply have no idea how foreskin functions in sex and enhances the pleasure for both the man and the lady. Cutting off the foreskin doesn't destroy all sexual pleasure for the men. But it lessens sexual pleasure for them and their female partners in some ways. And I'm not at all persuaded that circumcision decreases the risk of HIV infection. All of the studies on this subject have one basic flaw. The circumcised men in these studies belonged to muslim religion, which has strict prohibitions against extramarital sex. And the uncircumcised men belonged to a variety of religions and cultures that didn't have such strong prohibitions. The difference in HIV infections between these groups of people was most likely due to differences in sexual behavior and not due to circumcision. Edited by - Dan on 11/11/2007 12:03:04 PM [Link]
7_and_a_quarter Member 163 Posts 10/07	Posted - Nov 12 2007 : 9:53AM Dan wrote: Being uncircumcised myself, I can say from my own experience that masturbation is a lot easier and more pleasureable for me when I do it through my foreskin without directly touching my glans. I've tried to roll back my foreskin and masturbate my glans directly, as circumcised men have to do. And it was a horrible experience for me. The only way I could do it relatively well was when I had lots of lubrication. And artificial lubrication is not something I need to put on when I do it through my foreskin. Click to expand It's good to know I'm not the only one who feels that way. [Link]
kaiser1one Member Dark Avatar 142 Posts 10/07	Posted - Nov 12 2007 : 2:30PM Dan wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being uncircumcised myself, I can say from my own experience that masturbation is a lot easier and more pleasureable for me when I do it through my foreskin without directly touching my glans. I've tried to roll back my foreskin and masturbate my glans directly, as circumcised men have to do. And it was a horrible experience for me. The only way I could do it relatively well was when I had lots of lubrication. And artificial lubrication is not something I need to put on when I do it through my foreskin. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's good to know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Click to expand 3rded [Link]

Author

Post

realtip
Deactivated User

2301 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 4:09PM

The invention of underwear does not make an essential part of the human sexual anatomy obsolete. Circumcision was never advocated because anyone thought the foreskin was unnecessary. That argument only came later when it was discovered that the medical reasons were fabricated, but many Americans, for some strange reason, still wanted to rationalize keeping it as common practice. It wasn't even that long ago when the medical profession started informing parents that circumcision unnecessary. Before then, parents wouldn't be informed at all. There is a reason that the United States is the only developed country in the world that routinely performs it for non-medical and non-religious reasons.

Darn skippy it's an added bonus. That's why it makes no makes no sense to get rid of it.

Of course, circumcized can still enjoy sex. It's just that it's a whole lot different. As for it not being needed, Americans who argue that the foreskin is not needed in favor of male circumcision are really no different from people who argue that the clitoris is not needed in favor of female circumcision (a.k.a. female mutilation). After all, the rationale for getting rid of both was originally the same- to reduce pleasure and limit promiscuity.

[Link]

conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
2947 Posts
10/03

Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 4:14PM

I am with realtip on this, having a real tip is better.
Down with ritual male genital mutilation!

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 6:44PM

Prove it.

Nice hyperbole. Nonsense, but nice reach there.

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 9:09PM

Nobody can prove this to you, since you have already announced your intention to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with your own opinion.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 10:16PM

Eh, not even close to what I said. But if you intend on trying to convince me that I can't be convinced by evidence that doesn't exist, then I guess you win?

I'll agree with any evidence that conclusively proves that the sexual enjoyment/pleasure of a circumcised male is somehow inferior to that of a uncircumcised male.
Show it to me. Go ahead....I'll wait.

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Aug 11 2007 : 10:42PM

You already have exactly what you just asked for. You stated that it meant nothing to you.
Either you don't believe me, in which case there is no point in me telling you anything at all, or you don't understand the words, in which case there is still no point.
Really, it doesn't matter. Neither of us can return to his original intact state. We just have to live with it.

[Link]

GaySatyr
Senior Member

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

Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 7:26AM

Okay, from the perspective of a gay man who was circumcised at birth....
Regarding the study in Africa where there is a definite reduction in AIDS cases among circumcised men, cleanliness could be a factor. The other things that makes my blood boil is that ALL of the aid provided by the USA for African countries' HIV/AIDS problems REQUIRES teaching abstinence and discouraging the use of condoms. Too bad the African countries aren't in a position to tell the USA to go 'Cheney' themselves.
Regarding a partner who is uncut, his foreskin is one more sex toy (I'm assuming excellent hygiene to be a prerequisite). Docking is FUN!!! And although I'm much more top than bottom, I find that anal sex with an uncut partner is much more enjoyable. There is "room" for much more action without skin-to-skin friction at the sphincter because his engorged penis slides easily within the extra sheath; whereas, with a clipped partner, the skin is taut.
~ GaySatyr (ABB)

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 10:10AM

Licker, you gave my YOUR perspective which is valid and I respect that. YOUR perspective was that you were uncut then, for medical reasons (which you didn't elaborate on), you were cut later in life. And you lost sensitivity.
That's hardly conclusive evidence that being cut at birth means a man will enjoy sex LESS than one who is intact.
I'll use your own line here....feel free to reject anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. I don't envy any adult male having to choose circumcision in their adult life. Hell, I had a vasectomy and freaked about it.
But I'm sorry...you provided an personal anecdote. Not conclusive evidence.

[Link]

conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
2947 Posts
10/03

Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 11:44AM

Wouldn't sensations like sensitivity feel different to different penises anyway? Cut or not?
Like having to walk a mile in another man's shoes kind of thing and not as simple as cut or not people being more or less sensitive.
I have never seen a scale to express this sort of sensation.
There is a pain scale though....

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:33AM

So when are you gonna have your bottom lip trimmed off? Might as well hack off your arms too while you're at it. Armpits seem to be places where bacteria can be stored. Of course, there are always toothbrushes and you can always simply lift up your arms and wash them. And then, you can pull back the foreskin and wash it as well.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:37AM

Well, you could ask a tree if a circumcised man enjoys sex less than an uncircumcised man. Unfortunately, I don't think the tree would have a good answer.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:48AM

I submit that a good way to see the effects of circumcision for yourself is to watch men masturbate in porn flicks.
When you see an uncut European man masturbating to climax, what do you see? Usually, he has a surprisingly loose grip on his cock and is hardly moving his hand at all. It seems foreign to a cut man such as myself that such a small amount of stimulation could cause climax. I've seen uncut European men masturbate to climax using only their thumb and forefinger. I have not seen that often with cut men.
When you see a cut man jack off to climax, what do you see? Generally, he has a death grip on it.. He's pumping his fist furiously. The veins in his neck forehead are popping out. It looks downright unpleasant. He pumps and pumps and pumps. He could jack off for 10 minutes just trying to cum if you don't mind watching and waiting.
Eventually, he manages to cum and passes out with exhaustion. Now maybe uncut men have just discovered a new technique that us cut men have never managed to find. I think that just maybe sex feels better when you have more nerve endings in your cock. I dunno but that makes a lot of sense to me.
Edited by - randomprecision on 8/15/2007 5:57:42 PM

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 8:30AM

Well spotted RP, I hadn't thought of it as an example but you are right. I used to be able to do that. I can't do it now.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 11:22AM

RP, your observations could have as much to do with the blatant over-reliance on viagra in US porn than anything to do with circumcision.
If your observations of porn had real-world implications, circumcised males everywhere would need to furiously jerk-off-to-climax as well, correct? That's never been my personal experience during sex.
If anything, all you've demonstrated is that in porn, uncut men seem to be able to whack off more efficiently. Which still brings up the question as to why men, cut or uncut, HAVE TO FUCKING WHACK OFF TO CUM WHEN THERE IS A DROP-DEAD GORGEOUS WOMAN'S ASS/MOUTH/PUSSY THERE TO DO THE JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
But that's a discussion for another thread, isn't it?
I'm not sure porn is ever going to be a proper sample group for this kind of analysis. And I don't personally want to slo-mo male jack off sequences to do the study either.

Edited by - lubenluv on 8/15/2007 11:25:14 AM

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 15 2007 : 6:12PM

Well, it's been my experience that I can't climax the way those guys apparently do. I've never once in my life been able to cum just using my thumb and forefinger. And I don't use Viagra.

[Link]

dmzline
Member

43 Posts
8/07

Posted - Aug 16 2007 : 1:18PM

Most of this discussion seems off topic, I thought we'd hear from women as to their preference instead of what men think is better.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 16 2007 : 9:28PM

Women are free to chime in any time they like. We're just arguing amongst ourselves in the meantime.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 16 2007 : 10:15PM

Whaddyamean? All 3 of 'em have already chimed in. Now we just need Steph's opinion to make it complete.

[Link]

realtip
Deactivated User

2301 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 1:56AM

Perhaps you'd like to explain that. How is the comparison between male and female circumcision hyperbolic? The sole purpose of the clitoris to induce pleasure during sex. Other than giving the female pleasure, the clitoris has no other use at all. This is no different from the foreskin, which you yourself have called unnecessary. How is one unncessary, but not both, when they both do the same thing? Other than the fact that they practice female circumcision, and we don't, how is this comparison invalid?
I remember having this same discussion in a group once. It was amazing how adamantly against female circumcision the women were, while some were completely indifferent to male circumcision. Those who were not indifferent were opposed to both. The same goes for the men, except they were generally at least willing to acknowledge that both are mutilation.
This is also perhaps why many women are not quick to give their opinion on the issue of male circumcision. Considering how little most men themselves know about it, it stands to reason that most women would be all the more unknowledgeable about it.

While I have no knowledge of how circumcized men masturbate (in porn movies, I'm usually fast-forwarding over that part), it stands to reason that what you say is true. After all, to deter masturbation was the whole rationale for circumcision becoming common in the first place. The foreskin does make a difference. It's like saying there's no difference between sex with or without a condom. You definitely know the difference.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 6:39AM

^It's perfectly obvious why it was started. And many people are probably well aware of it and that is why they insist that it continue to be done. That and some backwards religious nonsense.
I love the way you can point out something that's perfectly obvious and people will ask you to prove it. Just LOOK! It's not hard.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 9:30AM

Thank you Dr. Realtip. The "sole" purpose of the clitoris is to give the woman pleasure.

So Doc.....are you adamant that the "sole" purpose of the foreskin is identical to that of the clitoris? That it's sole purpose is to enable the male to derive sexual pleasure?
The reason why I say "prove it" is simple...because people like to just pull factoids out of their ass and proclaim it as documented evidence that they are right. See above for an example.
The foreskin has MANY purposes, the vast majority of which are well documented as evolutionary throwbacks. The fact that it serves a sexual function isn't an argument I've engaged in thus far. Proclaiming that being uncut somehow provides an advantage to a male during sexual intercourse is not proven...in fact, I've actually seen studies to the contrary. The only fact I'm arguing is that the removal of the foreskin doesn't doom a person to a life of pleasureless sex and that there's never been a study of any scientific means that has demonstrated a difference in sexual gratification between cut and uncut males.
This is a pointless debate without evidence. It's your opinion and mine. You claim you are right and I'm wrong. I claim you've no evidence as we both know none exists. If you find something out there to prove I'm wrong, then do so.
And I'm sorry...RP's observations that cut men need to whack off furiously to get an orgasm don't count. I've already proven that wrong. My personal anecdote trumps his personal anecdote.

[Link]

realtip
Deactivated User

2301 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 5:55PM

How can I be adamant about something I never said? I said that the sole purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure, not the foreskin. In fact, in my first post in this thread, I gave the other purposes of the foreskin. By comparing the two, I simply pointed out their similarities, and why it's an ignorant argument to defend removing either. No one that I know of, including yourself, has ever been able to justify how cutting off one can be wrong, and the other not wrong. By the way, one doesn't have to be a doctor to know this stuff. Everyone should at least be educated about his/her own body. But if you want to hear what an actual doctor has to say about it, here is one.

I don't believe in pulling facts out of my ass. If I weren't educated on the facts, I probably wouldn't be any different than most other people who couldn't care less about this issue, simply because they just don't know what it entails. That being said, you don't have to believe me. If you choose, you may ask any number of doctors, human anatomists, or biologists. That's where I learned about it from. Better yet, you may also go to the library and research the issue. That's what I did. The amount of information you will find is endless compared to anything I could tell you, or what you will read here. But I'm afraid the vast majority of the research will only contradict your viewpoint.

Really? I've never seen or heard that anywhere before. I'd like to see you prove this.

Where?

Not pleasureless. Less pleasurable.

Read this. The study was performed on men who were circumcized as adults rather than as infants. Nonetheless, the conclusion does not support your opinion.

There is tons of evidence available if you're willing to consider it. A few small examples have already been provided here, but there is much more out there. It appears that you are the one arguing opinion rather than fact. If you see nothing wrong with circumcision for reasons of personal opinion or belief, then that's one thing and I guess you are entitled to it. But it's ridiculous to argue that the facts are in agreement when they are not. Denial should not be used as a defense mechanism.

[Link]

conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
2947 Posts
10/03

Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 6:10PM

Interesting links, good post realtip.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 6:35PM

Second time you've made this ridiculous claim. Again, please cite your reference for this "fact."

Nor does it yours. There is no scientific evidence that males circumcised at birth end up enjoying sexual pleasure less than males who were NEVER cut....and that continues to be your claim...see above for your own words.
In fact, there are fairly recent studies that indicate that it amounts to not one iota of difference in overall sexual pleasure.
Oh and let's not get into the whole "but my study is right and yours is wrong" debate. I've already posted earlier that unless you know who funded the studies and who benefits from same, very few are totally unbiased.

The only thing I can agree with you on here. But to deny something that doesn't exist is what, exactly? Oh yes...I think it's called "reason."
Edited by - lubenluv on 8/17/2007 6:51:45 PM

[Link]

realtip
Deactivated User

2301 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 17 2007 : 8:03PM

I'll just repeat your own words to you. First, you agreed that the foreskin contains thousands of nerve ending for pleasure, though you try to trivialize it as just some "added bonus." Then, you acknowledge that the "foreskin has many purposes," though you again claim them as "evolutionary throwbacks"- a claim you have not provided proof for despite being asked. So, if you acknowledge the fact that one of the purposes of the foreskin is to induce sexual pleasure, and has anatomical properties to that effect, does it not then stand to reason that removing it would therefore decrease pleasure? Of course it does. Again, it's like arguing that the removal of the clitoris has no effect.
You have not been able to deny that circumcision was performed for any reason other than to deter masturbation, neither have you provided any evidence to support your claim that the foreskin is unnecessary, or that it is any different from female circumcision. You just choose to believe what you believe, which is your decision. When you begin providing evidence for your own opinions on the issue, perhaps I will then feel the need to provide more than what I've already given.

Nowhere in that article does it examine a difference in sexual pleasure. It says that both are the same in temperature, arousal, and skin sensitivity on the glans (of course, the foreskin wouldn't necessarily affect these areas anyway), but not one word is given to indicate that pleasure derived from actual sex is the same. The article also still acknowledges that "the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis." In other words, since circumcized men have no foreskin or the nerve endings that go with it, it's almost impossible to compare anyway. It would be like performing a vision study on the blind.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 18 2007 : 7:45AM

Houston, we have liftoff. So then, you acknowledge that since it's impossible to compare cut and uncut men's sexual pleasure, your comments about which male has a higher sense of sexual pleasure are purely opinion and not fact?

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 18 2007 : 9:51AM

Can I ask a very simple question LNL? Why does it matter if it makes a difference in sensation or not? The fact remains that they're chopping off a piece of a kid's sexual anatomy before he ever has a chance to make that determination for himself.
Now this isn't something that maybe I'd give two shits about except for the fact that I kinda wish I still had my foreskin. Kinda hard to go back now.
You don't have to oppose it. I don't care but when you have people telling you they wish they weren't circumcised, how can you support it or argue in favor of it?
I don't give a rat's ass if millions of people are happily mutilated. There's the chance they may have grown up and been unhappy about it.
The cleanliness thing? We have soap. It was invented a while back. The cancer thing? Ehhh....they say most penile cancer victims are in their 70s. When you're in your 70s, you're at the point where people start to get cancers of various sorts. And that's assuming you even live that long.
The AIDS thing? Gimme a break! If neither partner has HIV, it's impossible to transfer so it doesn't matter. Sexually active people who aren't monogamous should be getting regular tests anyway.
I believe it's obvious why it is done. It has nothing at all to do with medical reasons or cleanliness. Anybody with a brain could keep it relatively clean if they have easy access to soap and water.
Edited by - randomprecision on 8/18/2007 9:51:44 AM

[Link]

conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
2947 Posts
10/03

Posted - Aug 18 2007 : 6:50PM

RP: good post.
As an intact male I totally agree. Sensation aside, there is no reason to mutilate male infants.
The practice has it's roots in problems that the modern man simply doesn't face.
Edited by - conquistador on 8/18/2007 6:52:20 PM

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 19 2007 : 5:06PM

RP: I don't personally oppose circumcision. I am circumcised and I had my son circumcised. My reasons for doing so are my own. I am not pro-circumcision either; I believe it's a personal choice for an adult uncut male and for parents of infant males. I do not assign rights to human infants to make the decisions any more than I assign rights to whether or not they should be "allowed" to be born. For me it was a parental responsibility to make the decision for my son....there are many who would believe a parent should have no such right. I oppose that on mere principle.
What I DO oppose is being labeled as a mutilator of infants and being informed that it's a FACT that I can't enjoy sex acts as much as an uncut male when there is ZERO evidence to support this and ZERO cause to label me as a child abuser.
Personally, I find most of the foreskin-waving from the anti-circumcision crowd to be outright anti-Semitic, although the vast majority would bristle at my opinion. Of course, I can't prove their intent any more than they can prove their assertions about the differences between cut and uncut males. While people are entitled to opinions, to attempt to convince me with non-existent evidence is laughable.

[Link]

realtip
Deactivated User

2301 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 19 2007 : 9:46PM

I am one of those people. Outside of medical or religious reasons (and even religious reasons are questionable), parents shouldn't have any more authority to deprive their infants of their foreskin as they should have to deprive their infants of a finger or a clitoris, or any other essential component of their anatomy.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 19 2007 : 11:27PM

Ah so we are back on the foreskin as being "essential" again? I'm alive, enjoy sex and life, healthy and prosperous. Doesn't seem so "essential" to me. Your views differ there, obviously.
At any rate, I'm thankful your opinion as one of those "people" is meaningless in the society I live in. My parental rights are not questioned in the matter any more than my rights to intervene in any other medical matter. At least not by anyone who matters.

[Link]

realtip
Deactivated User

2301 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 20 2007 : 1:44AM

It is true that my opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, has no weight in a parent's final decision on the matter. I know this is a sensitive issue for many, but it's a serious one also. I don't believe in depriving anyone of his/her parental rights. However, children have rights also. And in this case, the rights of the child supercedes those of the parent. Having said that, parents are still going to do what they want to do, regardless of whether or not it's proven to be in the best interest of the child. There are cases of parents still insisting on circumcision even after medical professionals have tried convincing them otherwise, especially now that routine practice of the procedure is on the decline.
But to keep trying to turn this into a matter of opinion just overlooks the facts. The fact is that there is no reason at all, whatsoever that it has to be done. The only reason it is done is just because parents want it to be done. That's it.
It's not that I think my stance on the issue is better than anybody else's. There's just no reason why, in the 21st-century, parents should still be hacking off their childrens' body parts. In fact, the only person whose opinion on the issue should matter is the one who doesn't get to decide because someone else took that power away from him. Just because Dad is happy without his foreskin doesn't mean that the son doesn't want his. My father had to have a surgical procedure in which part of his lung was removed. He has since fully recovered and is back to leading his normal productive life with no problems. That doesn't mean I want my lung cut too.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 20 2007 : 5:30AM

LNL - Yeah. OK. I'm antisemitic because I don't think people have a right to lop off a piece of a newborn child's sexual anatomy. You caught me!

[Link]

Fausty
Member

19 Posts
8/07

Posted - Aug 26 2007 : 8:57PM

Men who are not cut, well, their cocks look a bit like anteaters.

[Link]

VchaseFan
Member

Hi there!
24 Posts
9/07

Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 8:58AM

As far as women prefering which. I was with a girl who seemed to prefer circumcised, but only because they tended to be cleaner (from her experience). I stay clean, so she had no problem with my anteater.

[Link]

Dracula
Member

Women's necks are too damned sexy for me!
756 Posts
3/06

Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 2:27PM

If I had a choice, I would leave that area alone and especially keep cutting tools as far away as possible! But that choice was made for me when I was born and not much I can do about it now. I'm glad to read some prefer the cut look because that's all I have and will ever be there.

[Link]

kaiser1one
Member

Dark Avatar
142 Posts
10/07

Posted - Oct 22 2007 : 11:19PM

I'm uncut and I dont have any strange smells down there.
IF I have a kid and its a son, HE will have the choice not I. It's his body so he can mutilate it as he sees fit.(NOT calling circumcision mutilation mind you.)
About that study in Africa, rather than offering those ppl circumcision they should be teaching them about condom use.

[Link]

7_and_a_quarter
Member

163 Posts
10/07

Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 9:30AM

A girl told me that she was surprised my uncut member didn't have a bad smell. I was perplexed. Do some guys not clean themselves?

[Link]

Bornyo
Deactivated Member

803 Posts
12/04

Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 10:26AM

I think people who don't have their kids circumsized are too cheap to pay the hundred dollars or so it costs. Come on cheapskates- pony up the dough for your sons' sake.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 5:48PM

I wonder how much it would cost to have their middle toe CHOPPED OFF?

[Link]

7_and_a_quarter
Member

163 Posts
10/07

Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 10:34PM

Oh yeah, my life would have been so much better if only they had cut off part of my penis when I was a baby.
Ugh...now it's just such a labor having to peel the foreskin back and forth. It's a wonder I haven't passed out from exhaustion.

[Link]

AztecGold11
Member

514 Posts
8/05

Posted - Oct 29 2007 : 1:42AM

Cut
Edited by - AztecGold11 on 10/29/2007 1:44:43 AM

[Link]

CLAUDIA DOWNS
Member

39 Posts
10/07

Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 2:20AM

I LOOOOVEEEEEE UNCUT!!!

[Link]

7_and_a_quarter
Member

163 Posts
10/07

Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 9:10AM

Awesome! :)
I have to admit, I'm not familiar with your work, but now I'm a fan! ;)
And a southern girl, too!

[Link]

Bornyo
Deactivated Member

803 Posts
12/04

Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 2:03PM

^^^Haha if your parents had cared enough or been able to afford to have you circumsized your screen name would just be "Seven" right now.

[Link]

7_and_a_quarter
Member

163 Posts
10/07

Posted - Oct 31 2007 : 10:23PM

I don't count the foreskin, baby! ;)

[Link]

devinnlane
Devinn Lane

429 Posts
1/04

Posted - Nov 2 2007 : 5:33PM

Uncut.
xoxo
Devinn

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Nov 11 2007 : 1:50AM

Being uncircumcised myself, I can say from my own experience that masturbation is a lot easier and more pleasureable for me when I do it through my foreskin without directly touching my glans.
I've tried to roll back my foreskin and masturbate my glans directly, as circumcised men have to do. And it was a horrible experience for me. The only way I could do it relatively well was when I had lots of lubrication. And artificial lubrication is not something I need to put on when I do it through my foreskin.
Perhaps this is why a lady doing oral on the guy is so popular nowadays. The mucous membranes of the lady's mouth provide a similar experience to that of a man masturbating himself through his foreskin. And this is how circumcised men compensate and experience some of the sexual pleasure that has been taken away from them.
Also, one lady told me that she was pleasantly surprised by the effect my uncircumcised cock had on her pussy during our condomless sex. With every stroke, my foreskin rolled back until it reached its rollback limit, and then it created a sudden drag on her pussy-lips pulling on them, and as she described it 'jerking' her clitoris against her pussy lips and the shaft of my cock. She never had unprotected sex with an uncircumcised man before. And with me she discovered a sexual pleasure that she hasn't known before.
Almost every circumcised man is circumcised soon after birth. And circumcised men simply have no idea how foreskin functions in sex and enhances the pleasure for both the man and the lady.
Cutting off the foreskin doesn't destroy all sexual pleasure for the men. But it lessens sexual pleasure for them and their female partners in some ways.
And I'm not at all persuaded that circumcision decreases the risk of HIV infection. All of the studies on this subject have one basic flaw. The circumcised men in these studies belonged to muslim religion, which has strict prohibitions against extramarital sex. And the uncircumcised men belonged to a variety of religions and cultures that didn't have such strong prohibitions.
The difference in HIV infections between these groups of people was most likely due to differences in sexual behavior and not due to circumcision.

Edited by - Dan on 11/11/2007 12:03:04 PM

[Link]

7_and_a_quarter
Member

163 Posts
10/07

Posted - Nov 12 2007 : 9:53AM

kaiser1one
Member

Dark Avatar
142 Posts
10/07

Posted - Nov 12 2007 : 2:30PM

3rded

[Link]