Poll: which looks better/prettier - cut or uncut?

Sex with a cut man isn't terrible, but it's nothing terribly extraordinary. I always had to use lube and I was often sore the next day. With an intact man, lube was rarely necessary (only if I was especially dry), and I wasn't sore the next day, even with prolonged sex. Also, my G-spot got a LOT more stimulation with the intact penis.

 

Minkajane - I accept you point about lubrication, but it may be the individual and not whether he was cut or uncut. I don''t see how the feel of an uncut head can differ that much from a cut one (not that I have ever felt the difference).

But g spot stimulation - I fail to see how a foreskin can contribute to that - having become a master of g spot stimulation (digital), my ladies over the years tell me. Penile g spot stimulation can occur with a sharply upward angled short penis when in the missionary position, or a downward angled penis when intercourse is done doggy style, and the woman places her vagina at the right angle. The g spot on most women is tucked well up on the underside of the pubic bone and cannot be reached by ordinary missionary position intercourse except for the sharply upward angled penis

The g spot sensation is created by steady, hard pressure, and the foreskin does not contribute to this in any way - when the penis is erect, it is hard to distinguish a cut from an uncut penis in most cases, except where the foreskin will not retract. In that case, the soft foreskin still covering the head when erect should not add to the sensation on the g spot.

Your experiences must be related to the particular men you have had the pleasure to have had sex with, and is not a general rule.

 

What was the point of asking me about my experiences if you were going to dismiss them as me being lucky in my sexual partners? Of course, you'd never agree with me if I said there was any difference whatsoever. The only time you'd agree with me is if I said one of two things - 1. There's no difference whatsoever between intact and cut. Or 2. Cut is so much better.

What is the point of your little "circ rocks" campaign? You're cut, you're happy. I'm happy for you. Does that mean everyone in the world needs to be cut? Or does it just make you feel better to continually insist that cut is better since you don't have to face the fact that part of your penis is missing?

 

I'm cut and I'm satisfied with what I got but I don't see the point in creating polls like this then riding people who vote for uncut I mean everyone has a preference and they are entitled to it.

 

It's called a debate...I've learned that things are never absolutely black and white but shades of gray. Some people when they debate cannot accept anything the other side says, and have to attack everything.

 

i personally think it looks better cut.. and i have been with both cut and uncut guys.

 

Minkajane thinks cut penis heads are scabby and unpleasant to have sex with, and maybe that is from her personal experience... Most cut guys do not have "keritinized" (or whatever she said) heads - they are tender and silky. And most of their women like them just as they are - witness the post immediately above. Some cut ones are ugly, some beautiful, and the same with uncut ones. The eye is in the beholder.

 

Cutted, I don't know why you continue to put words in my mouth, but I certainly never said cut penis heads are scabby and unpleasant to have sex with. One wonders why you feel the need to make every person who prefers the normal penis into a psycho who says crazy things like cut penises are scabby. No one but you has been saying things like that.

 

Minkajane - in your earlier posts in this thread you said a "rough layer" builds up over the glans of a cut penis, and that sex with a cut guy is "nothing extraordinary". I don't have any "rough layer" on mine, and a blanket statement that sex with all cut guys is "nothing extraordinary" disrespects the maybe 120 million American men who are circumcised.

 

You asked me about my experiences and I told you about them. I never once said that sex with cut men in general was nothing extraordinary. You're certainly not helping your case by trying to twist my words around and making things up.

Besides which, keritinization is a well-known and scientifically observed phenomenon. It doesn't equal "scabby" (your word, not mine) and I'm glad you don't seem to have any, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, twisting my words and making things up to suit your own purposes.

 

In the majority of porn films, the man is cut. I like being cut, it's clean, silky, and smooth. My girlfriend thinks uncut penises are ugly and gross. And its proven that dirt, grease and other stuff gets stuck in the foreskin, and its harder to clean out. Plus its something less that can get caught in your pants zipper.

 

I'm a jew

 

Cutted, I can't for the life of me see the reason for your argumentative answers to a rather benign question. I'm not the only one to notice on this and other forums that you start with a question and escalate the whole affair into your personal preference for circumcision. That may be ok, but then the way you denegrate persons who disagree and their answers, not to mention that you never get around to answering their salient points of view. Aside from the sexual stuff, you let slip your lawyerly self and seem intent on adding to the already majority view of the profession. Are you on a religious mission to remove the last remnants of foreskin from the earth? You sure sound like it!

 

Fastswitch - I could turn your words around and apply them to you. Persons who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Since the four authoritative studies have recently been published showing that circumcision substantially reduces rhe risk of getting HIV and STDs, I have become a stronger advocate for circumcision to remove the scourge of these diseases, particularly in underdeveloped countries. In the U.S., it is available if anyone wants it, and perhaps 75% of U.S. newborn boys have it done, and many others have it done later in life, for cosmetic purposes, health reasons or better sex.

 

Circumcision Does Not Prevent Spread of HIV, Experts Warn

Here's an interesting discussion of a recent study on circumcision and AIDS in Africa. It used data much more relevant to the situation there, unlike the studies Cutted keeps talking about (I don't know where he found four, because last I heard there were only two). The two studies so often discussed on the news lately used sterile conditions in a medical environment, studied only males (while genital mutilation of both males and females is common in Africa), and did not account for things like marital status, number of partners, and safe sex practices. This particular study, however, looked at the HIV/AIDS risk of both sexes, as well as considering that these circumcisions are rarely (if ever) performed in a medical environment, instead being a part of a ritual. Often, multiple individuals are mutilated with the same dirty instruments. If just one of those people has HIV, every single person after him or her could become infected with HIV.

I have to laugh every time I see someone proclaiming "Circumcision helps prevent AIDS!" If that were true, why is it that the US has the highest rate of circumcision in the developed world and also the highest rate of AIDS?

By the way, Cutted, in 2003 (the last year for which data was available), 59% of boys were circumcised in the neonatal period (up to three months). I don't know why you felt the need to inflate the number to 75%.

 

Minkajane - I read that article by Devon Brewer, and I found his research biased and superficial. To say that there is a greater risk of HIV if the baby is circumcized in Africa because the knife may be unclean and containing HIV is an improper judgment of medical practices in Africa.

The four very recent studies I cited were conducted in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and New Zealand.

My figure of a 75% neonatal circumcision rate today is based on white babies. In areas where there is a substantial non-native born or illegal immigrant population, such as LA, the rate is much lower. LA is 47% Hispanic, mostly from Mexico, with several million illegals. The University of Chicago study of several years ago found the overall U.S. circumcision rate to be 80% for whites (89% if the mother was college educated), 66% for blacks, and 54% for Hispanics.

No figures were available for Asians, given the small national numbers, but South Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians and Malayasians are mostly circumcised, while Chinese, Vietnamese, Thais, Laotians and Cambodians are not, and Japanese are split. Many second generation Asians in the U.S. are cut.

It seems that the pro-circ and anti-circ groups are locked into their respective positions and not about to abandon what they have a lot of time and effort invested in, no matter what the evidence shows.

 

uncut!

 

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html

Proportion Of Male Infants Circumcised In Canada

1999- 16.9%
2000 - 15.8%
2001 - 15.3%
2002 - 14.6%
2003 - 13.9%


-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cirp.org/news/2006-03-23montrealgazette/

Fewer than 14 per cent of Canadian infant boys were circumcised in 2003, a drop of nearly 36 per cent since 1973, says the Association for Genital Integrity.

According to data gathered from provincial health departments and Statistics Canada, the association says male infant circumcision rates are as high as 29.5 per cent in P.E.I. and as low as 1.1 percent in Nova Scotia.

Robin Walker, former president of the Canadian Paediatric Society, said culture is often the biggest influence in choosing whether to remove the skin covering the head of the penis. So, too, is whether the father went under the knife, he said.

The pediatric society says there is no medical need for circumcision. Walker said the only proven benefit is a reduced chance of urinary tract infection, “and that is not, in the view of the CPS, a reason for inflicting it on a baby.”

Risks include minor bleeding in about five percent of cases, and in rare instances, life-threatening infections or hemorrhage.

Studies citing long-term benefits of circumcision – are “questionable and unproven,” Walker added.

In most of Canada, parents must also pay for the surgical procedure, because it ‘s deemed “cosmetic.”

Only Manitoba still covers circumcisions under medicare.



^^circumcision rate of newborns in Manitoba is 25%-27%, according to the first link.



-------------------------------------------------------


http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/


Circumcision Incidence Rate In America


2000 - 62.4%
2001 - 63.1%
2002 - 60.1%
2003 - 55.9%
2004 - 57.4%


Genital Integrity Incidence Rate (leaving the hospital intact)


2000 - 37.6%
2001 - 36.9%
2002 - 39.9%
2003 - 44.1%
2004 - 42.6%



---------------------------------------------------------------




I just thought I'd do some research on the subject myself, this is what I came up with for Canada and the US. Seems circumcision rates are fairly low in Canada (13.9%) and have decreased 3% from 1999-2003. In the US, just over half of newborns are cut (57.4%), and the rate has decreased 5% over the 5 years I found.

 

good god who really cares?! some people prefer cut, others uncut. must it really come to this over a silly little piece of skin?!

 

i was uncut untill i was 14, then due to complications and social pressure i went under the knife. i regret it and wish i was uncut, there were other ways to go around the complication but i wanted to be cut to look normal. It's a barbaric ritual which i will not allow my children to go through until they are old enough to make the decision themselves.
I would also like to note that the head of my penis has become densensitized since circumcision