Im circumsized, and now that ive read about how much pleasure Im missing out on during sex... Just wow.. This sucks, Im definetly going to look into that foreskin growth surgery that was mentioned before.
Ya know that this discussion is wearing thin as if you are cut and have no issues, let it be that you are alright with it If you are not then you also have no common ground as it just is and has always been. If you were cut as a baby then it has been since you can probably remember. How can you miss what you never had? If a little bit of skin is an issue with anyone......then the problem is bigger than that. A little foreskin is going to warp someone out, then it is an issue that is greater than skin. To my male child.......if his foreskin is that important then his issues are bigger than that. It is either there or gone..... deal with it. No parent does harm on purpose. If you view your sexuality is bassed upon a foreskin then you have an issue. God lord we can not grow them back..so deal with it. We can and often do have to remove them later and that is a whole other issue. If we expect women to accept their breast size, their baby tummies........oh lord accept your penis!
Robbie - you are not "half circumcised" - you just have a "loose cut" like I do. I can pull the foreskin I have left entirely over the glans when soft and half way over when erect. It is the best of both worlds - less chance of getting HIV or STDs, and the advantage of being able to have some foreskin, which can stretch the frenulum on the inthrust during intercourse. I like the way mine looks, and you should too.
I realize this is an older topic, but I just joined..and circumcision has been a pet peeve topic of mine for a few years now...Here is my condensed essay on it. The general reasons for circumcision are medical, hygienic, religious, and aesthetic. No medical association recommends circumcision. There is a SMALL, small correlation between fewer urinary tract infections and circumcision...which I would argue is certainly not worth the permanent removal of a piece of your body. All the other "medical benefits" are a load of hooey. There IS evidence that the foreskin is there for a purpose. It provides protection, sensitivity, and moisture to an important sexual organ. The jury is still out on whether or not it actually makes sex more pleasurable for either party. As far as hygiene, I think we can all agree that cut or uncut, all children need to be properly taught to clean ALL parts of their bodies. If you are a dirty person, you are a dirty person. It wouldn't be hard to get boys to pay some attention to that part of themselves while washing. Religiously speaking, this is the only accepted religious tradition that involves permanently removing a (arguably beneficial) part of an infant's body. Other traditions allow boys to choose circumcision for themselves at an older age as a rite of passage, and I see no reason why this should not always be the case. Can you think of any other type of permanent body modification that you would find acceptable to be done on a child for purely religious reasons? Branding? Removing a finger? An ear lobe? A piercing or tattoo? Aesthetically...this would mean removing a part of a boy's penis purely for fashion, appearance, or otherwise to "fit in". I find this shallow reason to be the weakest one. For example, if a man wants to pierce his penis to make it aesthetically pleasing...that is his business. But it crosses an ethical line when he pierces his infants penis. Do you see the similarity? If everyone started piercing their penises just to make them look nice would that make it okay to do to a child? Finding a circumcised penis more attractive is PURELY a socially learned trait. It is not the natural look of a penis and there is no reason to prefer it accept that (for some of us) it is what we are used to. So there you have it. It should not be the "right" of the parent. It should not be legal. I feel if people were properly informed that this practice would quickly become rare to extinct as it should be. Plus, it HURTS.
I'm circumcised... I had it done at birth but if I had a choice I wouldn't be. Also, I am not going to let any of my future children to be circumcised.
Uncut and can't complain.. but what really makes me laugh is when people say that they love the way they are and wouldn't want it any other way... how do you know what the other way feels like?!?
The thing is every study that has tried testing this on people who were old enough to experience both ends of it when they had it done showed no difference, a few say more pleasure, a few say less, but it wind's up basically being exactly the same
What about smegma? If you're uncut, don't you get the stinky cheese down there? From wiki: Both males and females produce smegma. In males smegma is produced and accumulates under the foreskin of uncircumcised individuals; in females it collects around the clitoris and in the folds of the labia minora. Smegma has a smooth or moist texture. However, if allowed to accumulate between the foreskin and glans, it may take on a caseous appearance and consistency. Smegma is less noticeable in circumcised males
I was cut, I just wish wish My folks would have told me when I was little instead of letting me find out on my own at an age when i felt like I should have known one way or the other already.
Just wondering why the cut people think that the piece of skin is there if it's ment to be removed. It's there because it works, and it looks sexy, and my fucking god is feels SO FUCKING GOOD during sex!
I've never been with a man that was not cut. So, I have to reference with which to judge. I'm pretty sure I'd love them either way. Hopefully I'll get an opportunity to give some foreskin a shot someday!