Some men are circumcised... it wasn't their choice, it happened at birth, mom and dad made the decision.

Some men are not. They have the foreskin... it supposedly offers men more sensation during sex... I wouldn't know.

But... do you find it attractive?

Most photos of men in the nude (mags, movies, etc.) usually show men who have been cut. It is rare, unless you're from outside the USA, to see men with foreskin.

What's your take folks. Cut or UnCut? Do tell...

dude your totally turning into natasha!

Christopher said:

You go girl!

Cut mos definitely... a male penis is already ugly, but a male's genitial uncut :OMG:... shouldn't there b a law against that sorta thing

I had a friend back in highschool who was uncut and somehow people found out about it and started calling him Mr.
Snufflelofogist

Christopher said:

Hey!!! I don't use random capital letters!!!

DigitalLisa said:

You've got issues!!!

June7 said:

I like ur's

J/K


[This message was edited Thu Jul 3 1:30:55 PDT 2003 by DigitalLisa]

Tis supposed to be true

Uncut men do have a more sensitive "helmet"

As for which do I prefer

Makes no difference

Although cut dicks are more attractive

Dick is dick and I loves em all

Much love Pochacoo

no no no...
the uncut version is more sensitive!
And I like uncut; it has more game and play value

i prefer cut because i had a boyfriend that was uncircumsized and i didn't realize that not all foreskins skin back past the head and... um... yea. afterthat night, we didn't have sex for like 4 days. i hurt him... oopsy!

i'm not picky. i have seen an uncut one only once so far. i think uncut ones have more character.
[This message was edited Sat Jul 5 11:59:07 PDT 2003 by Phoenixxx]

cborgman said:

Really? Well, see, there you go. You may have just saved me from someday. . .hurting. . .some poor uncut man. You can sleep tonight knowing you've done a good deed.

I don't really have a preference, but I do think that the foreskin can provide additional, um, options. Particularly when using hands. Ya know?

No preference really.. but I do kinda agree with zobilamouche about the uncut being more sensitive.

cut. more skin is just useless and unsanitary, unless you like cheese with your cracker

jthad1129 said:

Cut lose their sensitivity more quickly though.

i wish i still had my foreskin...i've always felt part of me was missing. sometimes i leave the house and i feel like i've forgot something at home and then i realize...i just don't have foreskin!

jthad1129 said:

It's really not useless. . .as I said, it offers additional sensation options.

And. . .um. . .if the dude bathes regularly. . .not really a problem. . .ick. . .

I have a (widely-shared) theory that men who have been cut just have to find reasons why it's better than being uncut to make themselves feek ok about having been subjected to genital mutilation by their parents/culture. Hmm.

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:

:LOL:

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:

tackam said:

they do cum a lot quicker, which is nice when i just wanna freaking sleep

Does this question ever come up, before you get the guy home?

If not, and you discover this after you both are in bed, do feak out and say 'AKKK, you have foreskin!'

or

'Shit! I was hoping you had foreskin'

cborgman said:

Lawd, honey, I understand.

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:

Too funny...

doesn't really matter as long as it's clean and he can work it deep and slow and make me moan

taste great less filling

XXX said:

Oh my damn

CUT!
It's is to be done in Islam.
It's healtheir for both the men and women.


Btw...this is what I was reading on children from A Muslim site and so here are some of the benefits of doing a circumsion.



(i) that it prevents infection due to microbes which is caused by retention of urine by the foreskin and narrowness of the urinary exit


(ii) it reduces lusts and the sexual urge and the ill-effects produced by them


(iii) it reduces premature ejaculation23


(iv) it protects the man from a number of dangerous diseases which may afflict him such as inflammation or cancer of the penis and a number of other diseases. Studies have shown that those who are afflicted by cancer of the penis are from those who are uncircumcised, whereas the circumcised are not afflicted by it24


(v) circumcision also protects the wife, since women married to circumcised husbands have fewer incidences of cancer of the neck of the womb than those married to uncircumcised husbands25

careydevi said:

all of these are, in modern times, medically disproven.

these days it's for 1 of 2 reasons


a) religion
b) aesthetic purposes


can we just cop to these and quit hiding behind lame medical excuses?



i prefer them cut, btw!

careydevi said:

The most up-to-date medical studies have shown that the rate of infection/disease is almost the same in circumcized men, and that any difference is most likely not due to circumcision. More and more couples are opting out of circumcizing their babies, because there is no medical reason for it. It's become more of a cultural and appearance related thing to do. I'll go look up some American Medical Association articles and post a link...

AaronSuperior said:

LOL, you said it first!

From the American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://www.aap.org/advoca...circum.htm


(I have to admit, I prefer them cut too, probably just out of familiarity)
[This message was edited Thu Jul 3 23:35:02 PDT 2003 by AnotherLoverToo]

I've never seen a man who was uncircumcised in real life, so I guess i don't have a preference,

I can tell you that if I ever have a son, I don't think I would have him circumcised, it seems unnatural to me.