A girl's preference - cut or uncut

[plesmore]

You'd better ask JulieAnn42. It's one of those fallacious reasons that get dragged up to justify male circumcision.

She has expressed her feeling, as she has a right, and it has been further discussed, which is also right - now, let's get down to the question cut and uncut.

For instance, some guy were not cut correctly and end up bent (still very functional but bent) how does that affect screwing? And if an uncut guy really has a lot of foreskin where you can hardly see the head - how does that affect screwing?

 

[suckonsimon]

While I'm in rant mode ...

What's with this term, "un-cut"? Like "un-educated". Something missing. No no no! "Cut" has something missing! Please talk about "natural" cock. "Whole" cocks. My cock isn't "un-" anything thank you very much. It's the way it's supposed to be, without misguided tampering.

 

[suckonsimon]

... And if an uncut guy really has a lot of foreskin where you can hardly see the head - how does that affect screwing?

At full erection all the foreskin gets drawn off the head and becomes part of the thickness of the shaft. In my reckoning, thicker is a good screw!

 

[plesmore]

While I'm in rant mode ...

What's with this term, "un-cut"? Like "un-educated". Something missing. No no no! "Cut" has something missing! Please talk about "natural" cock. "Whole" cocks. My cock isn't "un-" anything thank you very much. It's the way it's supposed to be, without misguided tampering.

All right - we shall now call cut circumcised and un-cut natural foreskin intact Really would like to shy away from the term "natural cock" since on Lit who knows where that would go

 

[hotoldrguy]

All right - we shall now call cut circumcised and un-cut natural foreskin intact Really would like to shy away from the term "natural cock" since on Lit who knows where that would go

a rose by any other name...

 

[JulieRichUK]

My prefernce is hooded, hubs crown was more sensative before having circumcission, we both miss it.

 

[plesmore]

My prefernce is hooded, hubs crown was more sensative before having circumcission, we both miss it.

Ok - what is the term now - hooded natural foreskin intact?

As far as thickness - yes thickness can be a very nice thing. So girls - if you have had both circumcised and hooded natural foreskin intact men is there a difference in thickness? I guess guys that like a little bottom play can join in on this question.

 

[Karhukissa]

I should really have my wife tell you about her experiences - she's been with 25 cut men and one intact (me).

 

[Green_Knight]

She has expressed her feeling, as she has a right, and it has been further discussed, which is also right - now, let's get down to the question cut and uncut.

It had nothing to do with expressing her feelings. She stated, as fact, that circumcision stopped the collection of bacteria. That is incorrect.

For instance, some guy were not cut correctly and end up bent (still very functional but bent) how does that affect screwing? And if an uncut guy really has a lot of foreskin where you can hardly see the head - how does that affect screwing?

You really need to get some lessons in male anatomy.

The problem is that such a large proportion of the US male population is circumcised that many women may have experienced only a few, if any, uncut men and with such small numbers, any perceived differences may be due more to individual behaviour than to whether they're cut or not. For example, PG564E said that an uncut cock tastes different before admitting that he has only tasted one uncut cock. Perhaps that one guy ate a lot of spicy foods.

A full foreskin that completely hides the head, if it hasn't already retracted when the man becomes erect, retracts as soon as the cock enters the woman. Contact holds the foreskin where it is at the entrance while the cock head continues its way into the vagina. I am told that that is an amazing feeling for the woman. After that, of course, as far as looks are concerned, there is no difference between a cut and an uncut cock, except that when the foreskin retracts behind the ridge of the glans, it can create a more pronounced ridge that provides the woman with more stimulation, and the more foreskin there is, the greater this effect.

As for performance, have a look at this article from The New Zealand Medical Journal (Vol 116 No 1181) on the "Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm". Among the points it makes are:

• male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during sex. This may become more of an issue as the woman becomes older and her natural lubrication decreases;
• the article quotes another study which reported that women who had experienced sex with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one;
• 85.5% of women in that survey said they were more likely to have an orgasm with an uncut partner - on average they were about twice as likely to have an orgasm;
• the movable foreskin made a difference in foreplay, being more arousing for the women;

The uncut cock is far more sensitive than a cut one which means that an uncut man who knows what he is doing can use it as a precision tool, eg to stimulate the G-Spot, which a cut cock would probably never feel. I have heard it said that, to make up for this lack of sensitivity, a cut man may have to go for a "wham, bam, thank you ma'm" approach to bring on his orgasm, but that may be what you prefer anyway. I also read somewhere that the result of this is that cut men are likely to cum sooner than uncut men.

For the man, keratinisation of the head after circumcision; the loss of the frenulum, and the loss of the nerve-packed skin of the foreskin together contribute to a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfilment. You may think that that's not a problem for the woman but a man who doesn't get as much pleasure from sex probably isn't going to be too bothered about her pleasure either and may be more likely to lose interest in sex.

 

[Deleted member 1655181]

It had nothing to do with expressing her feelings. She stated, as fact, that circumcision stopped the collection of bacteria. That is incorrect.



You really need to get some lessons in male anatomy.

The problem is that such a large proportion of the US male population is circumcised that many women may have experienced only a few, if any, uncut men and with such small numbers, any perceived differences may be due more to individual behaviour than to whether they're cut or not. For example, PG564E said that an uncut cock tastes different before admitting that he has only tasted one uncut cock. Perhaps that one guy ate a lot of spicy foods.

A full foreskin that completely hides the head, if it hasn't already retracted when the man becomes erect, retracts as soon as the cock enters the woman. Contact holds the foreskin where it is at the entrance while the cock head continues its way into the vagina. I am told that that is an amazing feeling for the woman. After that, of course, as far as looks are concerned, there is no difference between a cut and an uncut cock, except that when the foreskin retracts behind the ridge of the glans, it can create a more pronounced ridge that provides the woman with more stimulation, and the more foreskin there is, the greater this effect.

As for performance, have a look at this article from The New Zealand Medical Journal (Vol 116 No 1181) on the "Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm". Among the points it makes are:

• male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during sex. This may become more of an issue as the woman becomes older and her natural lubrication decreases;
• the article quotes another study which reported that women who had experienced sex with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one;
• 85.5% of women in that survey said they were more likely to have an orgasm with an uncut partner - on average they were about twice as likely to have an orgasm;
• the movable foreskin made a difference in foreplay, being more arousing for the women;

The uncut cock is far more sensitive than a cut one which means that an uncut man who knows what he is doing can use it as a precision tool, eg to stimulate the G-Spot, which a cut cock would probably never feel. I have heard it said that, to make up for this lack of sensitivity, a cut man may have to go for a "wham, bam, thank you ma'm" approach to bring on his orgasm, but that may be what you prefer anyway. I also read somewhere that the result of this is that cut men are likely to cum sooner than uncut men.

For the man, keratinisation of the head after circumcision; the loss of the frenulum, and the loss of the nerve-packed skin of the foreskin together contribute to a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfilment. You may think that that's not a problem for the woman but a man who doesn't get as much pleasure from sex probably isn't going to be too bothered about her pleasure either and may be more likely to lose interest in sex.

Wow. Take away: don't cut that little baby's penis!

 

[AKentuckyLady]

I'm not sure why there's so much angst about preference. I've never heard of a...

*goes back up to look for the proper term*

circumcised male that I've ever met shrieking about the fact that he was mutilated at birth and going through life hating everyone because of it.

Look guys. Just because we may have a preference doesn't mean that you're not desirable or gorgeous just the way you are. It also doesn't mean we won't fuck you because of it. We're stating a preference - probably because that's all we've experienced. And I've seen some...

*goes back again to look for the proper term*

natural foreskin-intact guys that are absolutely gorgeous.

Good lord you'd think we were discussing something completely off the charts like abortion or religion or Brexit. I'm actually surprised at the posts here, feels like I'm in the GB.

You're all handsome, virile, sexy men, no matter what your cock is. Because you know what? You're more than just your cock.

 

[Farawyn]

Oops.

Hi.

Love you guys.

 

[Green_Knight]

I've never heard of a... circumcised male that I've ever met shrieking about the fact that he was mutilated at birth and going through life hating everyone because of it...

Maybe not, but there are millions of women in the Middle East and Africa who don't complain that they've had their clits cut off. They just accept that as what's done in their culture. That doesn't make it right, though, nor does it mean that it's something we should simply accept and brush off as lightly as if it was no more than deciding whether or not to have pubic hair.

Expressing a preference is all very well but there maybe people reading this who are, for example, deciding whether or not to get a baby son circumcised. It would be naïve to think that they might not be influenced by misinformation (eg less bacteria) and comments posted here.

Would you regard it as acceptable if people expressed views on here as to whether they prefer a woman who has had her clitoris and labia cut off and asking whether such a woman was better to fuck than an intact one? I suspect not. In fact I'm not even sure that the moderators would look too kindly on a discussion that seemed to give tacit acceptance to FGM. Like suckonsimon, I too hope that one day someone while stand up and sue their parents and the doctor responsible for their mutilation, because that's what it is, no less so than the mutilation that millions of women have endured.

 

[barefootgirl69]

While I'm in rant mode ...

What's with this term, "un-cut"? Like "un-educated". Something missing. No no no! "Cut" has something missing! Please talk about "natural" cock. "Whole" cocks. My cock isn't "un-" anything thank you very much. It's the way it's supposed to be, without misguided tampering.

At full erection all the foreskin gets drawn off the head and becomes part of the thickness of the shaft. In my reckoning, thicker is a good screw!

I got so caught up wondering about your cock, that I put the soup on the plate instead of the bowl.

 

[Farawyn]

Preference.

Like...
On a cheeseburger, I prefer bacon. But if there is no bacon? I'll still eat the fuck out of the cheeseburger.

Simon, we you.

 

[RubenesqueAphrodite]

this thread reminds me of an argument that would take place between cattle ranchers and PETA...
You're never going to get either side to concede and you don't really have to.

Intact vs circumcised (<== look I came up another term!)

 

[Domesticity]

I didn't vote because I don't care.

 

[plesmore]

You know I just wanted to ask a simple question if a girl had a preference not that babies should not have their penis mutilated or that all uncut men should line up for the next circumcision. I have now concluded that the only fair thing to do is according to to the current survey that only every other baby boy should skip the procedure and that 58 randomly selected uncut men should be circumcised.

 

[Wild_Honey_66]

Is it hard?
Is it throbbing?
Is it dripping pre-cum?
Is it pointing in my direction?
Is it clean?
Does is smell good?
Does it taste good?
Can I touch it?
Can I put it in my mouth?
Can I sit on it?
Is it attached to a man I really like and is he planning on using it to make me come like a freight train?

I've never experienced an intact cock, but I can't imagine that if all the questions above can be answered 'yes,' that it would even occur to me to care one way or the other.

 

[Karhukissa]

My nephew was born in the US, and as his dad is cut, they had him circumcised. My sister told me some years ago that she would probably not have gone with it if he had been born back in Europe.

This is a touchy subject (except perhaps for the head of a cut cock), and there's a lot of feelings, traditions and conditioning involved. For women, it's the hygiene thing, plus that they have to think they made the right decision when they have their sons circumcised. No mother want to cause her baby harm, so if she can convince herself that it's OK, the practice will continue. They have been conditioned to think that an intact cock looks strange and is unhygienic.

As for the men, I think there's some denial in action, as they on a more or less subconscious level don't want to feel mutilated, don't know of anything else, and as fathers feel that they need to uphold the tradition.

One aspect is that the circumcision industry must mean a steady income for thousands of doctors. Might they have an interest in perpetuating the tradition, hmm?

Remember that while the practice has been sold with the hygiene aspect, the reason why it is still common in the US is rooted in the need to lessen sexual pleasure. That, if anything, should make members here (cut or intact) oppose the tradition, as we are all here to celebrate sexuality. Check this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention

 

[Wetpinkpetals]

Wow is there a clash of cultures going on here!

I'm so shocked to read posts by American women who I admire on here, nonchalantly making a preference for what I regard as the consequence of abuse inflicted on baby boys. Please, America! It's barbaric! When is some guy going to be courageous enough to sue his parents and the medics who cooperated with them so as to get this monstrous business closed down!

agreed!

And I also completely agree with AKentuckylady. There more to a man than just his cock. I'm not going to shoot down a circumcised man just because I prefer a man working with a fully functional penis. But I also don't support routine infant circumcision. That's some twisted shit!

 

[Green_Knight]

You know I just wanted to ask a simple question if a girl had a preference...

Then it was an incredibly naïve question to ask given that 'circumcision', male as well as female, is a highly emotive subject. If someone expresses a preference for the circumcised male, as you invited them to do, they are, in effect, saying that they support male 'circumcision'. And, presumably, if they see nothing wrong in the idea of mutilating males, they can hardly argue that mutilating females is wrong. Mind you, they'd be in good company - the so-called Islamic State support the idea of cutting both men and women, and it is said that many women have been forcibly cut in areas that IS has taken over.

Better, perhaps, if you'd asked the simple question "Do women find that there is any difference between intact and circumcised men?" and left out the poll. And if you'd looked back, you'd have found that just such a question was asked less than three months ago and, if you'd read it, you wouldn't have been surprised by the reaction this thread has got.

...there's a lot of feelings, traditions and conditioning involved. For women, it's the hygiene thing, plus that they have to think they made the right decision when they have their sons circumcised. No mother want to cause her baby harm, so if she can convince herself that it's OK, the practice will continue. They have been conditioned to think that an intact cock looks strange and is unhygienic...

...Remember that while the practice has been sold with the hygiene aspect, the reason why it is still common in the US is rooted in the need to lessen sexual pleasure.

These are precisely the reasons why FGM is still carried out in large parts of the world – because it's the tradition, because an intact woman looks strange and is unhygienic, and to discourage women from masturbating.

 

[neci]

i like them happy.

 

[Deleted member 1655181]

Then it was an incredibly naïve question to ask given that 'circumcision', male as well as female, is a highly emotive subject. If someone expresses a preference for the circumcised male, as you invited them to do, they are, in effect, saying that they support male 'circumcision'. And, presumably, if they see nothing wrong in the idea of mutilating males, they can hardly argue that mutilating females is wrong. Mind you, they'd be in good company - the so-called Islamic State support the idea of cutting both men and women, and it is said that many women have been forcibly cut in areas that IS has taken over.

Better, perhaps, if you'd asked the simple question "Do women find that there is any difference between intact and circumcised men?" and left out the poll. And if you'd looked back, you'd have found that just such a question was asked less than three months ago and, if you'd read it, you wouldn't have been surprised by the reaction this thread has got.



These are precisely the reasons why FGM is still carried out in large parts of the world – because it's the tradition, because an intact woman looks strange and is unhygienic, and to discourage women from masturbating.

I'm cut, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it. Do I wish I hadn't been? Maybe, but it is what it is, and I don't think there's been any emotional scarring as a result.

Female circumcision is a completely different matter, not even the same context. Yes, that is a horrible, emotional and debilitating event for a young girl.

 

[suckonsimon]

I need to come on here and say how much I love and value my Lit friends. Thank you, gals and guys! When the dust of a rant has settled, I hope I'm still ... appealing as you folks are to me.