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

Actually, I prefer the natural form myself...This debate reminds me of the show Penn and Teller's Bullshit (the episode I'm referring to was about circumcision)..The episode looked at both sides of the debate with all of the facts (and b.s.) supporting each...Quite curious to me, it also showed how to restore the foreskin through what they call "tugging" or using the P.U.D Foreskin Restoration Device..I actually have an ex that did this and it worked -- so yeah

If y'all are interested, check out the MAC (Mothers Against Cir.) and DOC (Doctors Opposing Cir.) web sites...

 

Cutted, we've been getting along so well; but I have to say you are defending a brutal tribal mutilation as old as civilization itself, for which Victorian America fell as a 'solution' to the "masturbation problem." In the interest of total disclosure, I must say that I do feel the uncut penises provide a better masturbatory experience, but cut lads will never know! Circumcision has since been rejected by pediatric, OBGYN, and dermatology societies around the world. It is supported only by those with religious persuasions as to its use as symbolism, and (mostly) American parents who want junior to look like dad in the shower. As you have said, erect penises look alike anyway - so what's wrong with keeping the head covered when not in use? The decision is apparently made most of the time by mothers, who should have the least say! Women are not men, don't have any more right to determine the state of a male penis the I have telling them what to wear. I'm tired of hearing whimpy men talk about getting cut to satisfy their girlfriends. Whose in charge of you body, guys? As to the spurious African study; now African men (who had an aversion to condoms anyway) are dropping their condom use and getting circumcised. They have, according to the study, a one in fifty-six chance of avoiding HIV. Condom use gets 'em 78% protection. What are you advocating? Go to circumcision.org for complete medical facts, opions, and side bars. By mostly Jewish doctors. What you should be considering, is the psychological dangers of subjecting a one to eight day old boy to such bloody brutality. Ever watched one? Jews, Arabs, and African tribes join Americans in being pro-circumcision of boys! If there is no likely effect psychologically, how come Africa and the Mid-East are the world's trouble spots - and America is the most bellicose nation in the world? Coincidence, of course. Rant over.

 

Fastswitch - NEWS FLASH! George Bush has just ordered all newborn boys in the U.S. to be circumcised, so that they can all look like him.
(Just kidding)

You are right that some of the circumcision impetus in the U.S. is societal - where I was born and grew up, in suburban New England, 99% of the boys I grew up with were circumcised. And most of our fathers were also. And Dr. Spock recommended it in his baby care book. So we all were.

Recently, there has been a movement in the U.S. not to circumcise, which has lowered the overall circ rate in the U.S. to about 66% from the former 80% (almost 90% for children of mothers who have attended college, according to a Univ. of Chicago study). Some of this decline is due to the influx of immigrants in the U.S. from countries where circumcision is not practiced extensively, such as Mexico, but it is also true that in the past 15 years, some pediatric societies in the U.S. have stated that it is not necessary.

In fact, my nephew's boys were recently homebirthed and not circumcised, their parents adopting a "wait and see" approach - if there are retraction or infection problems under the foreskin as the boys grow up, the foreskin goes. I am fine with that, and I have counseled a number of young men with retraction problems in this forum about ways to deal with it - and not necessarily by cutting it off.

However, STDs and HIV have become worldwide problems, and I believe that these medical societies will soon reverse their positions and urge routine circumcision as a preventive measure. Something has to be done to lick this problem, and condoms are not the bulletproof answer.

The same thing in the foreskin that you say increases the sensitivity of the penis in masturbation and intercourse also, according to the recent New Zealand study, allows for increased entry into the body of STDs from the underside of the foreskin after sex, when the glans retracts, and that part of the foreskin folds back under itself, creating a moist, airless environment for viruses to remain alive until they can enter the body, if the organ is not cleaned immediately after intercourse.

You also boast that uncut guys can masturbate better because you can slide your foreskin over the head. Well, as a "loose cut" guy, I can do it too, so I have the best of both worlds. And I have to believe that being cut makes for better intercourse, as most uncut foreskins slide back over the head on the outthrust, lessening sensitivity of the head and its coronal ridge frictioning on the vaginal walls.

The poll I put up here shows so far some interesting things - guys are pretty evenly split as to whether a cut or uncut penis looks better when soft. This probably is selfserving - most cut guys like theirs, and vice versa. And the women who responded to the poll are also split, but slightly more favor the "cut guy" look. Unless a guy is gay, women who have made love to both cut and uncut guys are probably the best judges of which penises they like best, but there are not many women with such expensive experience. If I am wrong, girls, weigh in here.

We make a great team in this forum.

 

I wish cutted would stop defending the way his penis is and trying to passively put down the way uncircumsized penises are. The USA is the only country in which it became a standard practice to circumsize babies, which is a terrible thing. There has been no proof that it is healthier, and logically, it isn't, because how can taking away a cover on a sensitive area be healthier than having it...honestly. Tight skin, scarring, the scream of the baby at birth...it's all so terrible. I'm glad I'm natural...my girlfriend doesn't like cut penises, just because they aren't natural.

 

Thank you, Tagg! I prefer intact penises as well, not just because they're more natural, but they just look better! No scarring, plenty of skin to work with, a softer look, no keritinization.

 

I thought my post was pretty well balanced between competing views. And there are a number of reputable recent studies from various parts of the world supporting circumcision as a means to prevent STDs and HIV. A Johns Hopkins/National Institutes of Health study of 5,000 men 15-49 years in rural Uganda proved that male circumcision reduced the HIV rate by 48%.

Another NIH and Canadian Institute of Health Research study of 2,784 men in Kenya 18-24 years old who are HIV uninfected, with six study visits over two years, showed that circumcision reduced the male HIV rate by 53%.

A third study by a French medical research agency of 3,274 18-24 year old men in a semi-urban setting in South Africa showed a reduction in HIV infection for circumcised men of 60-61%.

These studies cannot be ignored or tossed off with emotional rants. About 11,000 men participated in these 3 studies, and all of them showed a substantial reduced risk of HIV by being cut. And in these studies, the persons to be cut and left uncut were selected at random.

So you say that these are African men, and it is different in "white" countries - but the recent 15 year New Zealand study of largely white subjects found similar results regarding STDs.

Pretty soon the medical evidence will not be able to be ignored any longer.
And think of what worldwide male circumcision would do for stem cell research.

 

It seems pretty obvious to me, that men aged 40+ are most likely to be cut. My father, and all of my friends fathers, are circumsized.

It also seems pretty obvious to me, that men aged 24 and under, are most likely to be uncut (I picked this age group only because I'm 19, my bro is 24, my friends are anywhere inbetween and younger). I've played hockey since I was 6 years old, with different teammates every year. I've also attended hockey camps in different towns, with guys from all over the province. I'm uncut, and I've never, NEVER, been an outkast in the showers. The majority of the guys I played with were just like me, I'd probably guess 2/3's were uncut, with 1/3 being cut.

Has there been a change in stance over the years as to what should be done to a boy at birth (to circumsize or not)? You'd think there was...how else can this be explained? I don't think it's just coincedince that the guys I played with were mostly uncut...I played with dozens of different men. And it's not just where I'm from....I moved out of province after I graduated, and thinking of my closest 5 friends now, 2 are cut, 3 are not.

....yet...all of our father's are circumsized.

Anywhoo, I'll stop ranting. The obove is all just stated from personal experiences, and I'm from Canada so that may have something to do with it.

 

We of Western Civilized Society are hardly bound by African Sexual Mores. Myself, I would rather teach my son to use a condom than tear off part of his body. Meanwhile, in Africa, men are happily trashing the condoms we have donated good money to provide them with, and are having 'witch doctor' circumcisions. Thus in the false belief that they now are imune to HIV, etc. the incidence is again on the rise. Good going American Doctors who have been desperately trying to justify the mutilation they have spread for a century or more. There is proof that the studies which you tout, Cutted, are made by biased research teams at circumcision. org . Neverthelass, I will accept that in a contuinent in which the white man could care less, the studies have proven certain facts: that 1 out of every 56 newly circumcised men has failed miserably in his attampt to get AIDS! Wow! Think of it, 1/56. As for our friends in New Zealand, good on them if they can't deal with rubbers. Lastly, Cutted, there are more than enough eggs, sperm, and fertilized embryos available to hold the whole world's attention. [You sound like a member of the Christianist Federation: circumcise boys 'cause the Jews are our way to heaven, use the fortuitis foreskins for stem cell research, toss out the already fertilized embryos lest they lead us into sin(?),and march in lock step with George Bush and Joe Lieberman to kill as many of Israel's enemies as possible. On this is circumcision of gentiles based? BTW, I do favor Israel's right to exist. Shows you what a mixed up political world this is.] My last word on this is that I am happy as shit to be unharmed in my private parts, and you shortened guys leave us alone to raise our natural children as we wish! Now I have to find a wife to have kids with. They'll prolly all be girls - just my luck!

 

Fuck circumcision. I'm not Islamic nor Jewish

To the circumcised people.... isn't it a bit too sensitive after being circumcised? You know, like, "ah ah, don't touch."

I've pulled my foreskin back a couple of times and it's very sensitive. Not nice.

 

England, if a man is circumcised when he's a teenager or adult, it will be extremely sensitive for a while. Then begins the process that begins in infancy with a victim of infant circumcision - the keritinization of the glans. A rough layer builds up over the sensitive glans due to chafing against diapers (for infants) and underwear. The same thing would happen if your gums were exposed to air and had fabric laying against them all the time. After this layer builds up, the sensitivity of the glans is reduced and it is no longer so sensitive.

 

In England, many men ,especially of the upper classes, were circumcised before the early 50s, when National Health decided to no longer pay for circumcisions. Thus the circumcision rate in England dropped to close to zero for males under 50, while it is probably a majority of those over 50. Same thing probably in Canada, with most Dads cut, and perhaps 60% of their sons uncut, as the earlier poster experienced.

We all wonder, cut or uncut, what is it like on the other side. Only those who have had intercourse both ways can tell us how it is, and they are few.

The Minkajane's of the world say that cut guys have hard, scabby penis glans's which are so "kerotinized" that they are almost useless, and the "circumfetishists" (of which she says I am one) say that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin that does more harm than good. The answer is that both groups have good points in their favor.
"Why cut something off based on the prospect that something bad may happen -why not wait until it does happen or is likely to happen before doing it?) Good point.
"Why leave something on the penis which can facilitate HIV or STDs?" Good point.

Looking at this thread, opinions are pretty evenly divided on whether cut or uncut penises look better or prettier. One side will never convince the other - one look between their legs usually determines which side of the argument guys are on, and their girls usually say "My guy's looks best".

The same argument rages on about breasts - women who get fake breasts love the enhanced looks they have, and the looks guys give them. Women with natural, soft breasts think that fake boobs are gross and are objectifying male sexual behaviors. And one side will never convince the other to change.

Life is never simple.

 

Cutted wrote - "In England, many men ,especially of the upper classes, were circumcised before the early 50s, when National Health decided to no longer pay for circumcisions. Thus the circumcision rate in England dropped to close to zero for males under 50, while it is probably a majority of those over 50. Same thing probably in Canada, with most Dads cut, and perhaps 60% of their sons uncut, as the earlier poster experienced."


I'm not sure if that's the reason for why younger males in Canada are uncut. Health Care is free in Canada...wouldn't that cover circumsisions also? The reason I wasn't cut when I was born is because the doctor refused to do so, and gave my parents good reasons for why it shouldn't be done.

 

It could be that in Canada the national health care system no longer provides for circumcision except for medical necessity. Does anyone know? In the U.S., some healthcare systems like Blue Cross do not cover it, but a strong majority still have it done, for many complex reasons. In addition to health and religious reasons, there is a strong feeling here of wanting to "look" like your friends and father and brother. This feeling differs in various levels of society and ethnicies in the U.S.

But I think with the comprehensive studies by the U.s. National Institutes of Health coming out of Africa, and the recent New Zealand study, momentum will be building in the US medical community to recommend routine circumcision, especially in view of rapid spread of HIV and STDs in the U.S. and around the world. It is a small price to pay to help decrease this problem, which is reaching epidemic levels in some communities.

 

Cutted, I never once said that a circumcised penis was "almost useless." Don't put words in my mouth. Not that it's any of your business, but my ex-husband was circumcised and we had a pretty good sex life. However, with the extra sensation of the foreskin and the protected glans, I'm sure it could've been better for both of us.

And I'd appreciate it if you would put keritinization in quotes like I made it up. I didn't. It's a medical fact that exposed mucous membranes (of which the glans SHOULD be one and the inner foreskin is another) develop a protective layer, which has been shown in before-and-after studies of adult circumcisions to reduce sensation.

 

There youi go again, Cutted! Equating lower circumcision rates to health plan payouts. Have you no room in your heart for human decision making? Further, Canadians were not subject to the American "cure masturbatuion" craze of the 1870s - so circumcision never became that prevailant. As for Britain - the story became one of class and priveledge. The 'toffs,' have always circumcised their sons, as a way of seeming 'royal.' Matter of fact, all the way back to Henry VIII, male soverigns were done by rabbis (mohels.) Interestingly, it has been rumored for five centuriers that Catherine Howard's loss of her head had more to do with her complaints about Henricus VIII Rex's naked prick than about her former life. Meanwhile, the lower classes (majority of the population) could neither find/pay a mohel, nor wanted the service. Had little or nothing to do with National Health Service. Australia fell for the American masturbatory concerns, albeit a few decades later. Yanks do it, so should we! sortta rthing. Where do you get your facts?
:detective
BTW, National Health in Britain began in the early 50s. Thus from the start did not pay, based on general requests for circumcision being so few. As for Europe, anti-semitism made the decision. Good result, horrible reasoning!

 

Fastswitch - I think you and Minkajane should get married. You are made for each other.

 

....because we are overwhelmed by your 'inventivness?'

 

I don't really care, but I think it looks better cut.

 

You haven't seen mine then

 

Let's examine "the look" - an uncut penis has an artistic quality to it, and the Greek and Roman sculpturers preferred them (or didn't know much else), and in fact, used little boys' penises on their statues because the mature organ drew too much attention to it if used in a statue (I don't think Greeks and Romans had penises as small as shown on those statues).

A cut penis presents itself, when soft, in a more sexual context - the uncovered glans advertises its virility, and reminds the female viewer that this is what it is all about sexually. They can visualize that head inside them.

So I personally believe that the uncut penis looks better artistically when soft (unless it has a too long foreskin), but if the message one is trying to deliver is sexual, the cut penis looks better.

So, Minkajane, you have been made love to by both cut and uncut penises - what were the good and bad points of each experience?