A question for anyone/everyone in the know. I'm a guy with an uncircumcised penis. I've heard conflicting rumors that it's a good thing for women and it's a bad thing for women. No woman has seen my penis yet, so I have nobody to ask on this. Can anyone help me address these rumors I've heard.
Uncircumcised: good or not?
- Thread starter cj2000
- Start date
je404ucd
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Posts
- 116
Ooo ooo I know!
Okay. My information comes from The Guide to Getting It On (Yup, got a link for this one) by a guy I forget the name off.
So the who thing of circumcision as a practice (at least as a nonreligious practice in America) came from some guy with a name that started with an M (I think..). So Mr. M was really religious and believe it was wrong for people to masturbate (both male and female).
The foreskin has a lot of nerves in it. So removing it was thought to take away the draw of masturbation would stop young men from masturbating (uh... no... much as I don't know what it is like to not be ADD, I have no idea what it is like to have a foreskin). Now this was the real reason. Mr. M didn't want to stop there. He also was a promoter of the practice of removing the cliterous of a female baby.
The excuse is rather well-known (and well believed). The excuse is that having a foreskin is unsanitary. That it is more prone to infection.
The truth!
The foreskin is not bad. The only good reason to remove it is that it is painful to have it get 'torn' free (when they aren't ready) into the 'foreskin hood.' Actually, the foreskin has a very important purpose of protecting the head of the penis.
Much like how the fingers and toes are developed in the womb as flat paddles with extra cells who's only function is to provide structure until they aren't necessary and die off. These 'structure cells' are sort of like a glue between the foreskin and the head of the penis. Yes they eventually die and go away on their own, but until they do it is incredibly painful to have them forcibly severed.
Now is where I entirely explain the downside of having a foreskin. Your son (or yourself) is likely to run into some self-righteous nurse or doctor that thinks he or she knows best and tries to forcibly pull back the foreskin before it is ready. If you or your son is uncircumcised, make sure you are present in the room for ALL office visits that require examination of your or his penis.
As to the argument of it being unclean to have a foreskin. The foreskin that hasn't yet been 'freed' by having the structure cell die is sanitary. It has NEVER been exposed to air and is cleaner than the rest of your skin. Also, it isn't that difficult (I've heard and read) to clean the foreskin (even if it is only partially free). It is similar to cleaning a bruised area, the owner of the bruised body part knows just how much touching it can sustain without any pain.
Obviously, Mr. M was only partially successful with his quest. Fortunately for women, they don't have their clit removed just after birth.
There is no good biological reason to circumcise.
Also, I believe an uncircumcised penis looks a lot like a circumcised one once the foreskin is entirely 'free' (no more structure cells) and pulled backwards around the shaft. Also when you use a condom, a women would probably not even notice the difference.
Okay. My information comes from The Guide to Getting It On (Yup, got a link for this one) by a guy I forget the name off.
So the who thing of circumcision as a practice (at least as a nonreligious practice in America) came from some guy with a name that started with an M (I think..). So Mr. M was really religious and believe it was wrong for people to masturbate (both male and female).
The foreskin has a lot of nerves in it. So removing it was thought to take away the draw of masturbation would stop young men from masturbating (uh... no... much as I don't know what it is like to not be ADD, I have no idea what it is like to have a foreskin). Now this was the real reason. Mr. M didn't want to stop there. He also was a promoter of the practice of removing the cliterous of a female baby.
The excuse is rather well-known (and well believed). The excuse is that having a foreskin is unsanitary. That it is more prone to infection.
The truth!
The foreskin is not bad. The only good reason to remove it is that it is painful to have it get 'torn' free (when they aren't ready) into the 'foreskin hood.' Actually, the foreskin has a very important purpose of protecting the head of the penis.
Much like how the fingers and toes are developed in the womb as flat paddles with extra cells who's only function is to provide structure until they aren't necessary and die off. These 'structure cells' are sort of like a glue between the foreskin and the head of the penis. Yes they eventually die and go away on their own, but until they do it is incredibly painful to have them forcibly severed.
Now is where I entirely explain the downside of having a foreskin. Your son (or yourself) is likely to run into some self-righteous nurse or doctor that thinks he or she knows best and tries to forcibly pull back the foreskin before it is ready. If you or your son is uncircumcised, make sure you are present in the room for ALL office visits that require examination of your or his penis.
As to the argument of it being unclean to have a foreskin. The foreskin that hasn't yet been 'freed' by having the structure cell die is sanitary. It has NEVER been exposed to air and is cleaner than the rest of your skin. Also, it isn't that difficult (I've heard and read) to clean the foreskin (even if it is only partially free). It is similar to cleaning a bruised area, the owner of the bruised body part knows just how much touching it can sustain without any pain.
Obviously, Mr. M was only partially successful with his quest. Fortunately for women, they don't have their clit removed just after birth.
There is no good biological reason to circumcise.
Also, I believe an uncircumcised penis looks a lot like a circumcised one once the foreskin is entirely 'free' (no more structure cells) and pulled backwards around the shaft. Also when you use a condom, a women would probably not even notice the difference.
Last edited:
logophile
Verbose
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Posts
- 7,368
My first post here on Literotica! And about one of my favorite subjects... Intact vs Circumcision.
I have had sex with both cut and intact men, and it really truly is better for everyone when we don't mutilate our genitals. The practice of routine circ found its way into American culture about a hundred years ago, and je404ucd is right. It was done to prevent masturbation (John Kellogg of Corn Flakes fame was one of the leaders of this mass mutilation). There were claims that routine circ of newborns would also prevent other disorders, such as epilepsy, insanity, heart disease, and so on. Obviously none of this is true. Another thing to consider is that a male's forskin performs the same functions as a woman's clitoral hood. I, for one, would be very unhappy if someone cut off my clitoral hood. I kinda like it, I'm attached to it you might say.
To answer the original post, intact men are beautiful to look at and fabulous in bed. They seem to master lots of more subtle movements and really express themselves in a more sensual manner when having sex.
It's great that you're out here looking for information and I hope this has been at least little helpful.
Warmly,
LogoPhile
I have had sex with both cut and intact men, and it really truly is better for everyone when we don't mutilate our genitals. The practice of routine circ found its way into American culture about a hundred years ago, and je404ucd is right. It was done to prevent masturbation (John Kellogg of Corn Flakes fame was one of the leaders of this mass mutilation). There were claims that routine circ of newborns would also prevent other disorders, such as epilepsy, insanity, heart disease, and so on. Obviously none of this is true. Another thing to consider is that a male's forskin performs the same functions as a woman's clitoral hood. I, for one, would be very unhappy if someone cut off my clitoral hood. I kinda like it, I'm attached to it you might say.
To answer the original post, intact men are beautiful to look at and fabulous in bed. They seem to master lots of more subtle movements and really express themselves in a more sensual manner when having sex.
It's great that you're out here looking for information and I hope this has been at least little helpful.
Warmly,
LogoPhile
flyindolphine
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2004
- Posts
- 112
my bf has uncircumcised penis and i love it!. Yet i know that his ex didnt like it therefore i guess its all about a person. In my opinion if you really love the person, it wont matter if he has uncircumcised or not ,if he has big or small, you will love it either or.
boot lover
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- Posts
- 330
I've had no complaints about it in 34 years
lol
Pimptress J
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 254
In my experience, it doesn't matter. As long as it is clean (especially if she is going to give you head).
I have gotten equal pleasure from both.
I have gotten equal pleasure from both.
RavenSpirit2k4
Domina della Ombra
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2004
- Posts
- 2,456
Don't get circumcised. Just don't.
Similar threads
