Thread: Circumcised vs not...

starting a new thread so as not to hijack the necro thread...again. The debate in the last one is interesting.

I personally prefer circumcised. Reasons being...
They are more asthetically pleasing (to me)
There was the point of some natural lubrication in the uncircumcised man. I have been with both circumcised and not. Honestly, it kinda yucked me out a bit with the uncircumcised if he did not shower directly before having sex. That natural lubrication builds up pretty quickly and there are more places for sweat to be trapped and all that. It was easier to get the uncircumcised man off with a hand job but other than that, I didn't notice a difference when it came to sex. Just in my mind. Not alot of spur of the moment sex with uncircumcised tho.
Now, having worked with older men... say 65 plus... there seems to be a certian point where they just dont get in there and clean up as well as they should. We have these men that come through with the my penis is on fire complaint that are uncircumcised. So many of them have infections from poor hygene. Even the ones that are showering routinely. They just don't get it scrubbed like they used to. Starting to see more late in life circumcisions.
In talking to my man about it, he simply states "how can I miss what I never knew? It is what it is." Says he can't say one way or the other if uncircumcised is more sensitive or whatever and he is actually thankful that he doesn't have to worry about that buildup that can happen.

Originally Posted by Uneeklyme

Not alot of spur of the moment sex with uncircumcised tho.

If you didn't make him shower right before hand, then maybe it could be more spur of the moment.

So many of them have infections from poor hygene.

They should put some soap on that thing. It isn't rocket science.

In talking to my man about it, he simply states "how can I miss what I never knew?

Of course he can't miss it. But he still had it cut off of him without asking.

he is actually thankful that he doesn't have to worry about that buildup that can happen.

What buildup? All you have to do is scrub it.

There is nothing wrong with a guy being uncut.

It is natural way it is suppose to be.

quote=jonny;44188]If you didn't make him shower right before hand, then maybe it could be more spur of the moment.[/quote]
Uh, that was my point. I prefered my uncut partner to shower beforehand or at the very least clean up... hence, less spontaneous sex.

Originally Posted by jonny

They should put some soap on that thing. It isn't rocket science.

Yeah, you would think so. Tell that to the men that don't... especially when they get older and dont shower as often

Originally Posted by jonny

Of course he can't miss it. But he still had it cut off of him without asking.

Never said he didnt. Its kind of a given that he didn't have a choice just like most circumcised men. Uncircumcised men only have their experience with how sex feels and whatnot so to say that sensitivity is less is just a guess. I have no indication that a circumcised man isnt sensitive.

Originally Posted by jonny

What buildup? All you have to do is scrub it.

There is nothing wrong with a guy being uncut.

It is natural way it is suppose to be.

The buildup that lets see...I think it was hystorm that talked about it... "if I did not pull back the foreskin while showering each day, I would start to get a cheesy type of build-up at the base of the head. You could call it **** cheese I guess." I never said there is anything wrong with a guy being uncut. I just prefercut natural or not.

I agree with Unkeekylme...My husband is circumcised and this has been done to both of our sons are...This was done with the knowledge of the infections and discomforts it can cause...He saw many problem in the Navy with men who were not circumcised and also men who had it done and then got an infection...Sexually I have only known one type of man and that is circumcised....This would be my preference as far as pleasuring him...Completely open and able to get every bit of stimulation that I can give him....

I find the whole thing sickening quite frankly, however I can't be bothered to go on the crusade I did in the last thread again, but I will say a few things.

Originally Posted by Uneeklyme

It was easier to get the uncircumcised man off with a hand job

That is a strance coincidence, or whatever, since in fact the opposite is true. It is far harder to masturbate without a foreskin, and not having your gland protected (by the foreskin) erodes the nerve endings, slowly killing sensitivity.

Originally Posted by Uneeklyme

In talking to my man about it, he simply states "how can I miss what I never knew? It is what it is."

I tiger living in Mike Tysons penthouse suite may never know the plains that it would have hunted on, but it's removal is still wrong. People born into slavery have never known true freedom, so it doesn't matter that they don't have it...?

Also, statistically speaking, the problems that may arise from circumcision are roughly the same as what they claim to prevent.


On top of it all though, I just find it almost insulting when (mainly American) women say that something that is a natural part of a man's body "grosses them out", and that they need painful and pointless surgery to look good.. Well, go get a nose, boob and arse job and come back, then you might not be ugly. (-obviously I'm against basically all comsetic surgery, I'm just making a point-)

In a way, I just think women need to stay out of this decision process (for their children), and if the father is circumcised they should find someone impartial, so the father won't just carry on the sins of his father, etc.

Originally Posted by Uneeklyme

Uh, that was my point. I prefered my uncut partner to shower beforehand or at the very least clean up... hence, less spontaneous sex.

Well then don't complain about less spontaneous sex then, if you gonna make the guy bath himself beforehand.

Never said he didnt. Its kind of a given that he didn't have a choice just like most circumcised men. Uncircumcised men only have their experience with how sex feels and whatnot so to say that sensitivity is less is just a guess. I have no indication that a circumcised man isnt sensitive.

It is a proven fact that cut men have less sensitivity.

The buildup that lets see...I think it was hystorm that talked about it... "if I did not pull back the foreskin while showering each day, I would start to get a cheesy type of build-up at the base of the head. You could call it **** cheese I guess." I never said there is anything wrong with a guy being uncut. I just prefercut natural or not.

Any idiot can clean there junk. And they should. If you don't. Then there will be buildup. But anyone can clean themselves

I just think it is rediculous that some can be so picky that they don't want a guy to be like he suppose to be.

I agree with Jonny completely

you were born with it, keep it! you should shower daily anyway so keeping clean cant be a problem? If it is then your not showering properly anyway!



women get infections and stuff but we dont go getting our bits chopped up

Originally Posted by shweedart

I agree with Jonny completely

you were born with it, keep it! you should shower daily anyway so keeping clean cant be a problem? If it is then your not showering properly anyway!



women get infections and stuff but we dont go getting our bits chopped up

Nice to see some female support, something tells me that it's not a coincidence that you're also from England...

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

On top of it all though, I just find it almost insulting when (mainly American) women say that something that is a natural part of a man's body "grosses them out", and that they need painful and pointless surgery to look good.. Well, go get a nose, boob and arse job and come back, then you might not be ugly. (-obviously I'm against basically all comsetic surgery, I'm just making a point-)

I think some of it has to do with the fact that circumcision had become a common practice here and I don't think it is a topic that is discussed when we are taught about the "birds and the bees". I think if it is something that women are not exposed to/familiar with that when they see it they think it's strange. In other words they tend to "side" with familiarity.

The first pictures I saw of a male was of a circumcised one and I thought that was just how a guy looked. I had no idea such a practice existed. Imagine my surprise when my first encounter with a guy (my first husband) turned out that he was not circumcised. I didn't know what to think because I had never seen such. Why was he different? I didn't know because I'd never seen it. It was then that I found out there was such a practice of circumcision.

I agree with you that no one should say that an uncut male grosses them out. But I will point out that there are a lot of men that won't even give a lot of women consideration because they don't fit their idea of what a woman should look like - certain weight, certain breast size, etc.

Me, it doesn't matter. I feel that you love the man not his penis.

Originally Posted by Fallen1

I agree with you that no one should say that an uncut male grosses them out. But I will point out that there are a lot of men that won't even give a lot of women consideration because they don't fit their idea of what a woman should look like - certain weight, certain breast size, etc.

Yeah, I know why things are as they are in America, the men have been circumcised so they do it to their children, women fear the unknown etc. The cycle continues.

As for men judging women by their bodies, that's about finding a healthy mate (and women do it too), they're not looking for them to have their genitals mutilated at childhood to fit in with a "tradition".