Cut or Un-Cut?

I am cut myself...

although by no choice of my own, or my Father's choice either... my Father and all my Brothers are uncut, but when I was born, the ASSHOLE doctor that was in charge at the time, took it upon himself to make a decision for my parents and circumcised me. Well of course back in that time period, people didn't file lawsuits against doctors. Long story short.... as far as my preference on another man? I have neither since I have actually only been with one other man in my entire life. He was cut, but even if he hadn't I still would have enjoyed his cock. :D
 
Circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer in long term partners as well as penile cancer in men... Removing the foreskin slightly desensitizes the head, which can actually contribute to better "staying power"... Also, if an adult male develops phimosis & requires circumcision, he'll curse the day his parents didn't do it when he was an infant!!

If that was true then the rate of penile cancer should be much higher here in Denmark where most people are uncut but guess what? It isn't. You are repeating the oldest myth in the book...
 
i prefer to be with a cut guy. i have tried both and dont like the foreskin, it looks ugly and the feeling is different. I especially dont like the feeling of the skin being pulled down when entering me, it felt so weird.
its interesting how uncut men are portraying having foreskin as way better, when they dont know how it is to be cut!! :)
i am not a man, so i cant relate either way, but my vote is CUT!! :) Sorry folks.

Errrm, i usually pull back my foreskin BEFORE we even start having sex. ;) Men like me with our penis intact CAN imagine how it feels being cut, we can pull back our forseking and then put on our clothes and believe me, it feel d***** akward. My glans are very sensitive and i am extremely happy for my foreskin. Circumsized men on the other hand simply cannot know how it is to have a foreskin.

and btw. i have no problems with cumming too soon. ;)

Lynn23: It is EXTREMELY easier to masturbate when you have foreskin, you just manipulate the head through that, you dont need lubrication. When the internet was new i fell over some american masturbation pages but i never understood why they were allmost obsessed with various lubes untill it dawned on me: "Most Americans are cut".
 
ed, I have seen no credible source to link circumcision to anti masterbation efforts. It doesnt make sense anyway since it doesnt in any way interfere in male masterbation. It does not affect a male's sexual function or pleasure. I am not a man but I have talked to plenty and all seem to be just fine. I am perfectly fine with people that dont want to do it or wtih men that are not cut. I just don't think there should be attacks against those that do agree with the procedure.
i don't believe he's attacking those who are happy with their cut penises.

i believe he's angry that he was subjected to unnecessary surgery without his consent.

two completely different things.

and yes, if you do your research you'll see that lots was written on the idea that if a male was circumsised it would dissuade masturbation...again, the issue wasn't about interfering with the masturbation act, it was about stopping young boys from engaging in it full stop.

i echo what the last poster said in regards to being able to masturbate easily when the foreskin is attached...i was quite intrigued when my last boyfriend was able to do this as my previous circumsised partner wasn't able to without loads of lubricant....but having read more i discovered that the foreskin actually produces a small amount of lubricant, so it all made sense.

~peace~
 
Veronica, he is clearly saying that cut men are inferior. Which simply isnt true. I have become quite interested in this debate and so have done a lot of looking around for information, talking to husband, etc. I can still find NO credible evidence that circumcision was meant for an anti masterbation purpose. And that makes sense because it in no way inhibits masterbation. I occasionally see this arguement about cut men needing lube to masterbate. That is simply either a lie or a statement made out of extreme ignorance. I have witnessed cut men masterbate and none of them used any lube and all seemed to be enjoying the sensation. So again, why is there such animosity and the need to fabricate lies against circumcision?
 
Errrm, i usually pull back my foreskin BEFORE we even start having sex. ;) Men like me with our penis intact CAN imagine how it feels being cut, we can pull back our forseking and then put on our clothes and believe me, it feel d***** akward. My glans are very sensitive and i am extremely happy for my foreskin. Circumsized men on the other hand simply cannot know how it is to have a foreskin.

Ummm are you telling me that your foreskin is staying pulled down with all the thrusting in and out of the vagina through out the intercourse??? because that doesnt happen lol
 
Veronica, he is clearly saying that cut men are inferior. Which simply isnt true. I have become quite interested in this debate and so have done a lot of looking around for information, talking to husband, etc. I can still find NO credible evidence that circumcision was meant for an anti masterbation purpose. And that makes sense because it in no way inhibits masterbation. I occasionally see this arguement about cut men needing lube to masterbate. That is simply either a lie or a statement made out of extreme ignorance. I have witnessed cut men masterbate and none of them used any lube and all seemed to be enjoying the sensation. So again, why is there such animosity and the need to fabricate lies against circumcision?

it's probably best we agree to disagree lyn.

i've read quite a lot myself and spoken to people in the medical profession but hear a different story to yours....one great suggested reading is: The Ritual of Circumcision by Karen Ericksen Paige http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm, which helps to explain why it is an established procedure in the west (mostly usa as the brits no longer do it).

i never said it does inhibit masturbation.....the medical profession of the time were trying to inhibit masturbation because it was considered immoral.

again, i'm not saying ALL cut men need lube to masturbate, but i would imagine a fair few do whereas an uncut man doesn't need to as the foreskin provides some natural lubrication.

again, i've read the chap's post on here but don't see him say cut men are inferior....i truly believe he is angry that this surgery was performed on him without his consent and within himself feels he is incomplete....i believe his was a personal attack on a surgical procedure and the doctors that allowed and performed it on him, not an attack on the circumcised men of the world.

~peace~
 
Last edited:
Errrm, i usually pull back my foreskin BEFORE we even start having sex. ;) Men like me with our penis intact CAN imagine how it feels being cut, we can pull back our forseking and then put on our clothes and believe me, it feel d***** akward. My glans are very sensitive and i am extremely happy for my foreskin. Circumsized men on the other hand simply cannot know how it is to have a foreskin.

Ummm are you telling me that your foreskin is staying pulled down with all the thrusting in and out of the vagina through out the intercourse??? because that doesnt happen lol

Errrr, yes i am. The guy you have experienced must have had a very sloppy foreskin. Yes my foreskin is retracted before we start fucking and it STAYS retracted during the whole "show". If you dont believe me try watching (if you can find any) some Danish Porn movies. You will see that 1. the actors are uncut and 2. their foreskin stays retracted during fucking.

Now i am 54 and have been uncut for my whole life and fucked several women and i have NEVER experienced my foreskin "crawling out" during intercourse, never.....
 
it's probably best we agree to disagree lyn.

i've read quite a lot myself and spoken to people in the medical profession but hear a different story to yours....one great suggested reading is: The Ritual of Circumcision by Karen Ericksen Paige http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm, which helps to explain why it is an established procedure in the west (mostly usa as the brits no longer do it).

i never said it does inhibit masturbation.....the medical profession of the time were trying to inhibit masturbation because it was considered immoral.

again, i'm not saying ALL cut men need lube to masturbate, but i would imagine a fair few do whereas an uncut man doesn't need to as the foreskin provides some natural lubrication.

again, i've read the chap's post on here but don't see him say cut men are inferior....i truly believe he is angry that this surgery was performed on him without his consent and within himself feels he is incomplete....i believe his was a personal attack on a surgical procedure and the doctors that allowed and performed it on him, not an attack on the circumcised men of the world.

~peace~

Veronica, I read the reading you suggested. But I certainly don't find it to be very informative. It makes broad generalizations and conclusions not based in any fact. It is far from objective, and factually incorrect. Instead, I find the article very simlar to most anti-circumcision arguements; based mostly in anti-Christian and anti-American sentiment.
 
Veronica, I read the reading you suggested. But I certainly don't find it to be very informative. It makes broad generalizations and conclusions not based in any fact. It is far from objective, and factually incorrect. Instead, I find the article very simlar to most anti-circumcision arguements; based mostly in anti-Christian and anti-American sentiment.

considering the woman that wrote this (an american i might add) is an associate professor of psychology at the university of california, devoted four years of study to the rituals of circumcision, and has drawn on several references to back up her paper, it sounds like she's coming from a pretty credible place.

i believe it's also a jewish and muslim tradition to circumcise, i'm not aware of any christian customs of this nature, so i'm confused why this article would be viewed as anti-christian.

this coupled with the many other papers i've read on this topic as well as conversations with medical professional, i think i will choose to keep my opinions where they lie.

again i will just say it's probably best if we agree to disagree on this one lyn....i acknowledge you are entitled to your opinions on this subject matter and no one is stopping you believing whatever you want to believe.

~peace~
 
lynn quoth:
ed, i have seen no credible source to link circumcision to anti masterbation efforts. it doesnt make sense anyway since it doesnt in any way interfere in male masterbation. it does not affect a male's sexual function or pleasure. i am not a man but i have talked to plenty and all seem to be just fine. i am perfectly fine with people that dont want to do it or wtih men that are not cut. i just don't think there should be attacks against those that do agree with the procedure.
you see no credible source? did you not actually click on the link, which sources its statements? how much research have you actually done on the subject? i'm honestly curious. you can make all the airy, sweeping generalizations that you like. i can do that too but it doesn't accomplish anything to persuade those who don't agree.

you're a woman. i'm a man. i assure you, i'm a lot closer to knowing than you are. would you accept my word for it if i said something relating to having a vagina? no, of course you wouldn't, and honestly, you'd be an idiot if you did. it really doesn't matter how many men you've discussed it with. i'm not going to tell you i have any clue what it's like to have menstrual cramps even though i've actually discussed the matter with women.

and i don't know where you get the impression that i'm in any way making an attack. that's patently ludicrous and i defy you to dredge up anything in my post where i said so. go ahead, i'll wait, i'm patient.

veronica quoth:
i don't believe he's attacking those who are happy with their cut penises.
thank you. for the record: you're right, i didn't. i have a standing challenge to lynn to show where that actually took place.

lynn quoth:
i believe he's angry that he was subjected to unnecessary surgery without his consent.
you don't read very well. i specifically said i'm intact, which is to say, uncut. i'm curious where you got that impression.

lynn quoth:
veronica, he is clearly saying that cut men are inferior. which simply isnt true. i have become quite interested in this debate and so have done a lot of looking around for information, talking to husband, etc.
o good grief. i didn't say that. nowhere is that statement or sentiment present in what i wrote.

why are you so defensive about this? it's not like you've got a personal stake in this. at most you've got a second-hand stake in it.

ed
 
Silver whisper I think you need to take a step back. First some of what you "quoted" as mine above we're not my statements, but statements of others responding to my statements. So I guess you are the one not reading too well. But maybe I should not say that, because I am not intending to be confrontational here, nor am I advocating anything.

Professor Paige's article contains a lot of information, but not necessarily accurate. One source she cites to indicates it was based on a a study of only 22 men. That is anecdotal at best. But the issue I was debating that got this all started was a comment that puritans instigated circumcision as an anti masterbating technique. This is clearly false or at least unsupported. The anti masterbating texts referred to by Prof Paige indicate that circumcision was widely in practice already and continued after that movement ended. So the evidence would seem, to me, to make clear that anti masterbating was never a driving force behind circumcision.

Next I was not referring to you when I mentioned the attacks on circumcised men. Nor am I defensive at all. I think circumcised or uncircumcised is fine.

But I do take a bit of offense that you attack me for being a woman with an opinion on this issue. You don't seem to minds that Prof Paigr is a woman and expresses an opinion. In fact she is clearly an advocate against circumcision. She has numerous papers on sexual politics and feminist positions. You know first hand about your own peniis. All others you learn about the same way I have, by discussion. And there is nothing wrong with that. By the way, I think it is fine that you have an opinion on any issue regarding women's health. I am not asking you to take my word on anything and I have in no way said men should or should not be cut. I have mearely tried to point out some false statements and indicate that circumcised men should not be criticized nor should the practice. That seems to have enraged you.
 
Uncut. Seeing a cut penis actually makes me feel a little sick. It looks mutiliated. :( So, my opinion is pretty clear. No offence to any circumcised men!

I often get the same feeling when viewing uncuts. I've seen some really, really ugly ones. I take no offence from your remarks. Humans are funny, we tend to like, what we are used to.
 
lynn quoth:
i think you need to take a step back. first some of what you "quoted" as mine above we're not my statements, but statements of others responding to my statements. so i guess you are the one not reading too well.
lynn, take another look. i've attributed those statements correctly & accurately. if you really want i'll even include links to the specific posts in question.

lynn quoth:
but maybe i should not say that, because i am not intending to be confrontational here, nor am i advocating anything.
i didn't take what you said--whether you recognize it as coming from your own posts or not--as being confrontational. but more about this below.

lynn quoth:
professor paige's article contains a lot of information, but not necessarily accurate. one source she cites to indicates it was based on a a study of only 22 men. that is anecdotal at best.
OK, but it also wasn't me who advocated for or linked to professor paige's article. i'm pretty sure you probably meant to direct that statement at veronica, rather than to myself.

lynn quoth:
but the issue i was debating that got this all started was a comment that puritans instigated circumcision as an anti masterbating technique. this is clearly false or at least unsupported. the anti masterbating texts referred to by prof paige indicate that circumcision was widely in practice already and continued after that movement ended. so the evidence would seem, to me, to make clear that anti masterbating was never a driving force behind circumcision.
it was believed--incorrectly, i should point out*--that circumcision would help reduce the likelihood of masturbation due to desensitization of the penis. the link i provided--which you appear not to have examined--explains this, but also notes that it was caught up in other stuff, such as concerns re: hygiene. my own examinations of the subject have led me to the conclusion that there are dubious arguments pro/con equally. as i said from my first post in this thread, my contention all along has been that as a surgical procedure, the practice of male circumcision provides negligible medical benefit while adding potential risk to the circumcisee. therefore, absent religious observations, it makes little sense to engage in a surgical practice whose benefits and risks seem close to a net zero.

lynn quoth:
next i was not referring to you when i mentioned the attacks on circumcised men. nor am i defensive at all. i think circumcised or uncircumcised is fine.
really? so when you posted that:

veronica, he is clearly saying that cut men are inferior.
what precisely were you trying to say? to be clear, in this post you are responding to veronica, who is explaining her view of what i said. nobody else's post was quoted, and at the time of this writing, the post in question has not been edited.

now, if i were feeling confrontational, i'd say that you're a liar. you are obviously making a statement that the evidence clearly shows to be factually incorrect. however, since lying requires a deliberate effort to mislead and since i'm not an asshole, i can certainly allow for the possibility that you misremembered. it happens to us all--heaven knows it does to me every day.

having said that: when shown the evidence, do be gracious enough to own the fact that you are not correct, hm?

lynn quoth:
but i do take a bit of offense that you attack me for being a woman with an opinion on this issue. you don't seem to minds that prof paigr [sic] is a woman and expresses an opinion. in fact she is clearly an advocate against circumcision. she has numerous papers on sexual politics and feminist positions. you know first hand about your own peniis. all others you learn about the same way i have, by discussion. and there is nothing wrong with that...[snip]...i am not asking you to take my word on anything and i have in no way said men should or should not be cut. i have mearely tried to point out some false statements and indicate that circumcised men should not be criticized nor should the practice. that seems to have enraged you.
OK, so a few things in this particular quotation:

1) again, it isn't me holding up professor paige. i don't defend statements i haven't made and haven't endorsed as i find it a waste of time & bandwidth.

2) if you think the practice of male circumcision is neutral, that's entirely your business. nowhere in what i've said am i stating otherwise. that's not what you're doing though. you are seeing offense (enraged?) where none has been offered.

3) if you think this is enraged, you really haven't spent much time actually reading what people say to one another on teh internetz. suffice it to say that at most, i'm speaking to you as one adult to another and holding you accountable for what emanates from your keyboard, just as i fully expect you to do vis a vis myself.

now, if you'd like to continue this exchange by questioning one another's states of mind or agendas, i suppose we can do that. but let me be clear: i'm not questioning yours. therefore, i would prefer if you do me the courtesy of returning the favor.

fair?

ed
 
Silverwhisper, are you serious? You posted a "quote" from me, but it wasnt from me. You altered the post to make it look like I had said something that I didnt. And then you call me a liar? Wow. But regardless, the conversation I was having was clearly about a poster that had been circumcized but was angry about it. So CLEARLY I wasnt talking about you. That same individual has referred to circumcision as "evil" , butchery, mutilation, etc. I was objecting to that. Why you have seen the need to insert yourself into that discussion I dont understand, since you now seem to indicate that circumcision for relious purposes is fine. I do NOT wish to continue the discussion with you since you have shown that you are willing to alter people's posts and then accuse them of lying. For the record, I do not care if a man is cut or uncut. I don't think they should be attacked or criticized either way nor should the practice of circumcision be demonized. That is the position I have tried to make clear here. For some reason, you seem to have a problem with that. And that says something about you.
 
Hmmm... The conversation has gotten really interesting here. I'm still voting for both. Thank Gawd for variety. ~ AvrgBlkGrl

Peace please!!

This is a place to be heard, not decimated.

tumblr_mdd67tkS9p1qc2ksto1_500.jpg
 
I was not circumcised at birth, and grew up all my life in that state. Did hear that some had a preference for cut cocks but never met anyone that said, oh your uncircumcised. It does make the cock more sensitive, and you have to be hygienically cleaner. There is smegma, but most don't know that both sexes produce it and the odor associated with it. But I got circumcised later then most and it was a right of passage for me and the choice I made and I haven't regretted it. I got a new toy, updated so to speak. Enjoy both in their unique glory I say.
 
Back
Top