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

This poll deals only with how a penis looks soft (since almost all penises look alike hard, unless the foreskin will not retract). Girls and guys to answer separately.

 

uncuted is the natural way BACK TO THE NATURE

 

im cut, no problems

 

I wish I wasnt cut, can I sue my parents for maming my penis?

 

*giggles* :lol:

 

You would, in my opinion, have a much better chance of legal recourse if you contacted as many other men who were cut without personal consent as you can find from the same hospital. Then file a class action against the hospital. The hospital has the deep pockets and attorneys, your folks probably don't have the funds to settle this kind of action anyway. It seems to me this could be a constitutional issue which could result in a Supreme Court decision.

Good luck on your quest for justice for your poor mutilated penis.

 

​

Why is there no alternative choice like:

[] Guys - "I don't really give a flying fuck"
[] Girls - "I don't really give a flying fuck"

?

 

Re the comment that the poll should have an "I don't give a fuck" category - good point, but I wanted to get people to make a choice - and they could elaborate in the text that they don't not really have a strong opinion one way or the other. Or they could make that comment and not vote.

Re the other comment on suing one's parents for circumcisng him as a baby, I am a lawyer and, if retained by the son, I will sue his parents for not having him circumcised, where he later contracted HIV after unprotected sex. (Just kidding)

 

QUOTE=Cutted
Re the comment that the poll should have an "I don't give a fuck" category - good point, but I wanted to get people to make a choice - and they could elaborate in the text that they don't not really have a strong opinion one way or the other. Or they could make that comment and not vote.
The nature of my post was only to point out that many don't care and that is just as valid of a consideration as the other two options.


Re the other comment on suing one's parents for circumcisng him as a baby, I am a lawyer and, if retained by the son, I will sue his parents for not having him circumcised, where he later contracted HIV after unprotected sex. (Just kidding
Counselor, the legal action post was strictly intended as tongue in cheek humor.

 

Well when it's hard and counts there's not really much of a difference, but I think when soft it's one of the times where the unnatural look looks better.

And as for the lawsuits, it's been tried and courts generally uphold the right for parents to do it.

 

Like a poll is going to make a difference! Get real, there's a war on, there's poor people, and sick people, the Horn of Africa just exploded, and - George W. Bush is still President! Now they're problems that should constitute reason for a poll.

 

Sooooo Can I assume you voted for "I don't Give a Flying Fuck" ?

 

..by absentee ballot from Insecure Island! (BTW, where does a FF land?)

 

I like being cut, it looks cleaner.

 

uncut the way guys were made why would you want that changed and everytime i think about men who are cut i think about how it was done and then i wanna cry for that poor baby

 

Shaina - Please don't cry for me. I like it the way it is.

 

i think it should just be left alone my self,

 

This past weekend's New York Times Magazine had an article entitled
"A Real-World AIDS Vaccine?" It said - "The vaccine that arrived last month was not actually a vaccine. It was, instead, a confirmation of what scientists had long suspected: circumcision helps prevent men from AIDS infection."

The article uses statistics which reveal that in Nigeria, with an over 80% circumcision rate, the AIDS rate is 3.9%, and in nearby Zambia, where under 20% are cut, the AIDS rate is 17%. In largely uncut Swaziland, the AIDS rate is a huge 33%, Botswana, 24.1%, Zimbabwe, 20.1%. Yet in nearby Congo, where over 80% are cut, the AIDS rate is only 5.3%

Pretty or not, a circumcised penis clearly helps prevent AIDS.

Cutted

 

Yeah, right. What you neglected to mention was the fact that the two African studies on circ and HIV were refused publication in ANY medical journal because of their obvious biases and lack of proper procedures. They have still not been published in a medical journal. Sexual preference, safe sex practices, marital status, and other significant factors were not accounted for. In addition, both studies were stopped early. When the statistics are examined, it is apparent that although the HIV rate for intact men is indeed higher in the early stages of the study (can we say HEALING PERIOD?), the gap begins to close after the newly circ'd men resume their sex lives, which is why the studies were stopped early (in order to provide the outcome the researchers wanted, before the numbers evened out).


This whole "circ prevents HIV" thing is ludicrous. CONDOMS prevent HIV. Additionally, no one yet has been able to explain why, if circ is SO effective in preventing HIV infection, the US has far and away the highest rates of both circ and HIV infection in the industrialised world. If circ prevented HIV, there would be a significantly lower HIV infection rate in the US due to the significantly higher circ rate. The opposite is true.

For the record, I prefer the intact variety. Smooth, beautiful, just the way nature intended. No scar tissue, keritinization, tight skin, etc.

 

It is too early for the medical journals to "refuse publication" of the studies on circumcision in Africa. Where did you get this information? The studies have been endorsed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, a U. S. government entity.