Cut or uncut

suckonsimon;88390162) If someone cut a bit off my penis they would go to prison........ Oooooo!....you said cut.....[/QUOTE said:
You got me grinning ear to ear! But my passion about the matter remains.

The number of times I've read on these boards posts by North American men full of uncertainties about themselves because their parents took the right decision and said "No" to this practice. What feeds that in them? One of the things is the language you use in the States. It feeds them with the notion that they have an abnormal penis, a penis which hasn't had done to it what should have been done to it. It is "uncut". Joke away gals all you like. But wake up to what's goin' on here.
 
I’d love to initiate some North American girls into the fun that a natural uncut penis can be
 
You got me grinning ear to ear! But my passion about the matter remains.

The number of times I've read on these boards posts by North American men full of uncertainties about themselves because their parents took the right decision and said "No" to this practice. What feeds that in them? One of the things is the language you use in the States. It feeds them with the notion that they have an abnormal penis, a penis which hasn't had done to it what should have been done to it. It is "uncut". Joke away gals all you like. But wake up to what's goin' on here.

I understand your dislike for the practice, and even sympathize with it.......I'm just confused with your hatred for the terms cut and uncut, which is slang by the way, and I've never really associated the terms with "good" or "bad" or "normal/not normal", simply use it to describe circumsized or not....at any rate I'm not even sure why it's done other than certain instances of health reasons???
 
I understand your dislike for the practice, and even sympathize with it.......I'm just confused with your hatred for the terms cut and uncut, which is slang by the way, and I've never really associated the terms with "good" or "bad" or "normal/not normal", simply use it to describe circumsized or not....at any rate I'm not even sure why it's done other than certain instances of health reasons???

I know there are American Litster men who do make that association. They have anxieties about a date discovering that they are "uncut". I suspect there are well-meaning mothers in the States who have uncertainties about the decision they are being asked to make but who are just tipped into saying "Yes, circumcise him" because the language used makes them feel that circumcision is the norm and to say "No don't do that" is to leave the boy's initial health care somehow incomplete. I'll say it again: language is a heck of a powerful tool! Anything at all which is described as "un-" anything takes on a tone of variant, of the negative, of not quite right. We say unpleasant, unkempt, unemployed, unkind, uninsured, unfit ... so gorgeous, natural, complete, fully-enjoyable cocks are "uncut" and putting it that way is ok? No it's not ok! But the clinics love it the way it is because they'll keep getting the custom to cut - with the fees too thank you.

The reason it's done in North America is because a very powerful prude in the 1920s persuaded the nation that circumcision would stop boys wanting to masturbate. That is the total and complete reason for the practice, which before that was totally unknown outside of the Jewish community as it is still in Europe.
 
Cut here. If it were possible it would be interesting to try uncut for a week.
 
Cut or uncut should be an informed decision by the holder of the prick (once he had reached the age of consent).

:)

As a unwilling recipient of the procedure I can only say I have no idea what I'm missing.
 
Well, like uncut is the best. I like the increased sensitivity a uncut cock has. Plus you can suck up the foreskin and than play the tip of your tongue down to the head... It really drives them wild...
 
It's a holdover from Judaeo-Christian beliefs. Circumcision is not practiced much in Europe anymore, because Christianity is all but dead there. Here in the United States, we consider ourselves predominately Christian.

Yeah I get that, asked my boyfriend last night why he's circumsized as his parents are not even religious, his response was he doesn't know, not something he talks to his parents about, lol.....guess he'll never know the difference but says he's glad he is.
Only other person I've really talked to it about was a friend of mine who had her two boys done, again not religious, but the father had to have it done as a child due to infections.
It remains a divided subject!
 
Like I posted on the size thread. It doesn't matter to me/us. Any cock that can fill our holes with cum is fine with us.
 
It's a holdover from Judaeo-Christian beliefs. Circumcision is not practiced much in Europe anymore, because Christianity is all but dead there. Here in the United States, we consider ourselves predominately Christian.

Don’t want to get into an argument but on what basis do you make your assumption that Christianity in Europe has almost died out? Try telling that to the millions of Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
 
Natural (uncircumcised) and glad of it. Not something I ever discussed with my parents, but I’m glad they made the decision they did.
 
It's a holdover from Judaeo-Christian beliefs. Circumcision is not practiced much in Europe anymore, because Christianity is all but dead there. Here in the United States, we consider ourselves predominately Christian.

Circumcision is precisely NOT a Christian practice or tradition. That was settled as totally clear in the first generation of the Christian movement, as gentiles embraced the new faith alongside the first Christians who were of course Jews. Clear decision made, held to ever since, that circumcision was to be left behind, and was not part of the New Covenant. The American practice of circumcision is OUT OF LINE with the Christian gospel and that is abundantly clear all over the New Testament. Another thing which makes the practice seems so extremely strange to the [very large!] number of European Christians of all denominations.
 
Cut here.

I've sucked a LOT of cocks over the years and they have overwhelmingly been of the cut variety. I don't mind an uncut cock at all, but I prefer the visual of a cut cock and enjoy sucking them more as well. I think it's just a mental thing though because I can't really point to anything unpleasant about sucking an uncut cock. Just give me that cum!
 
I've sucked a LOT of cocks over the years and they have overwhelmingly been of the cut variety. I don't mind an uncut cock at all, but I prefer the visual of a cut cock and enjoy sucking them more as well. I think it's just a mental thing though because I can't really point to anything unpleasant about sucking an uncut cock. Just give me that cum!

If one just pulls the foreskin back toward the body, other than maybe some increased sensitivity, is there a difference? I have seen some videos of BJs where the lady giving does not pull the foreskin back and that seems to be odd.

I'm cut as are my male children and also was my father.
 
I was sucking a guy at a rest area on one occasion and he made it clear he didn't want me to roll back the foreskin. He wanted me to suck it just the way it was. I didn't mind at all all. I was just happy to be of service to him. And he was happy enough with my service to honor me with his load. He is the only man I can remember communicating preference in that regard.
 
If one just pulls the foreskin back toward the body, other than maybe some increased sensitivity, is there a difference? I have seen some videos of BJs where the lady giving does not pull the foreskin back and that seems to be odd.

I'm cut as are my male children and also was my father.

That's it, mate, when a guy with a whole penis is at full erection, the foreskin kinda 'disappears' from the head of the penis and becomes part of the girth of the shaft. At least mine does! [pics linked to prove it, on other threads here on Lit]. You're spot on about the sensitivity - a 'protected' head will keep its full tingle of sensitivity for a lifetime - and the other difference, as I state above, is additional girth in the mid-length of the shaft as the thickness of the foreskin settles into that part of the whole joy-pole.
 
As with most things, follow the money...

In the post WW II generations, American physicians routinely circumcised new born males, mostly for the extra income.

Justifications included a lower rate of penile cancer and skin infections. Such statistics are far too insignificant to justify the surgery.

And then it was most often done with out anesthesia, under the delusion that infants can't feel pain.
 
Last edited:
In the post WW II generations, physicians routinely circumcised new born males, mostly for the extra income.

Justifications included a lower rate of penile cancer and skin infections. Such statistics are far too insignificant to justify the surgery.

And then it was most often done with out anesthesia, under the delusion that infants can't feel pain.

Spot on about the money. There's the other big difference between Europe and the States: The British National Health Service declared circumcision to be "a non-therapeutic procedure" in the mid 1940s, and so physicians could not be paid for it unless it was done by special private arrangement. The British public heard the clear message and decided that on this one, they would definitely not follow the new American trend.
 
this wasn't a debate question, just a simple status question...
 
Back
Top