Facts & Fictions About Cut & Uncut Cocks

[RRRalph]

Hygiene is very important... for all people.

Very true. I shower two times each day and everytime when i shower i wash my foreskin. That's nothing more than normal. I don't understand that there are some people who doesn't do that

 

[wilehart1978]

Ralph, you're a cutie and obviously a clean cutie....You make need to let me sample....

Very true. I shower two times each day and everytime when i shower i wash my foreskin. That's nothing more than normal. I don't understand that there are some people who doesn't do that

 

[RRRalph]

This is what i think.

I like uncut cocks and i really like to see cut cocks. Unfortunately i haven't been with a guy with an cut cock. I don't think that circumsized cocks equals male genital mutilation. For one it looks very good and for two is works very good!

But i still think that uncut cocks are a bit more sensitive, which doesn't mean that cut cocks are bad. Both uncut and cut cocks are very sensitive, but an uncut cock is a bit more sensitive. It doesn't need that much research, cuz it's so obvious.

Walking with the foreskin rolled back feels like the helmet is touching barn paper, cuz it's too sensitive. Guys with cut cocks doesn't notice anything, cuz it's less sensitive.

 

[RRRalph]

Circumcision is a medically unnecessary surgery.

You have a valid explination.

The kowledge that I'm sexually and aesthetically superior to you cheers me up!

I'm touched by your niceness

 

[DVM26uk]

I'm uncut but the sensitivity pisses me off I am really bad at handling pleasure and usually go for guys who prefer to be pleasured than those who prefer to pleasure because I just can't last.

Now although I have been with other uncut guys who are not as sensitive as me, I guess it all depends on genetics. Oh and by the way I am super hygenic, fishy dicks make me sick...

P.S - I'm in England where most lads my age are uncut and never had a problem with hygene with any of them.

 

[PorthAnnwn]

Thanks for the link. I haven't read it yet.

The following is from http://familydoctor.org/042.xml, linked to from http://medlineplus.gov/.

Are there any benefits from circumcision?

Studies about the benefits of circumcision have provided conflicting results. Some studies show certain benefits, while other studies do not. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary. The American Academy of Family Physicians believes parents should discuss with their son's doctor the potential benefits and the risks involved when making their decision.

A recent AAP report stated that circumcision does offer some benefit in preventing urinary tract infections in infants. Circumcision also offers some benefit in preventing penile cancer in adult men. However, this disease is very rare in all men, whether or not they have been circumcised. Circumcision may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. A man's sexual practices (e.g., if he uses condoms, if he has more than one partner, etc.) has more to do with STD prevention than whether or not he is circumcised.

Study results are mixed about whether circumcision may help reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners, and whether it helps prevent certain problems with the penis, such as infections and unwanted swelling. Some studies show that keeping the penis clean can help prevent these problems just as well as circumcision. Infections and unwanted swelling are not serious and can usually be easily treated if they do occur.

There’s been talk before about whether or not anesthesia is used. I found the following at http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html, also linked to from http://medlineplus.gov/. It shows that doctors now use anesthesia, but it’s very new.

Perhaps one of the hardest parts of the decision to circumcise is accepting that the procedure can be painful. In the past, it wasn't commonplace to provide pain relief for babies being circumcised, but because studies have indicated that it benefits the infant to receive anesthesia, most doctors will now provide it. Also, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends the use of pain relief measures for circumcision. Even up until recently, though, anesthesia hasn't been universally used, so it's important to ask your doctor ahead of time what, if any, pain relief will be utilized with your son.

Two primary forms of local anesthetic are used to make the operation less painful for your baby:
• a topical cream (a cream put on the penis) that requires at least 20 to 40 minutes to take its full effect
• an injectable anesthetic that requires less time to take effect and may provide a slightly longer period of anesthesia


Here's a study in PDF form that discusses the issues of parental consent regarding infant circumcision. http://www.bigdisk.co.uk/544117. I uploaded the file. To download it use the password "jub".

 

[OptimalOptimus]

Ok, I'm uncut here's my my 2 cents.

1 #

It's pointless to circumcise a penis in this day and age. Unless for medical rasons due to cancer on the foreskin or foreskin is too tight.

2#

Being CUT makes your penis less sensitive, I've been with cut & uncut guys, it' sdifferent with all cut guys. but what i've seen is cut guys dont' feel as much & it takes more rubbing,sucking,jerking to get them off.

3#

A foreskined penis creates a waxy coating inside the foreskin, this does have an odor. BUT if you are washing and keeping it properly clean you should not have this on a foreskin penis. WARM water & Soap once a day during your shower or bath is MORE then enought to keep a foreskined penis clean. The waxy substance is only a way to keep the penis head & foreskin from fusing together & provides an odor factor for pheromons wich the body uses to send messages. the message should be IF you smell it, you need to clean it.

4#

Random things...

i once had to suck off a CUT bf for 2 hours to get him to cum, I've sucked off a uncut guy for 10-15 minutes and he came a ton. FOreskin has alot more nerver endings then the head of a penis. there are many different types of nerves.

Frenulum - This is the most sensitive part of the penis, containing a huge number of nerve endings. Circumcision usually removes all or most of the frenulum.

Circumcision is not medically necessary. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborn males.

The circumcised penis loses sensitivity in three ways


Loss of the foreskin nerves themselves. As has been demonstrated by studies such as the one by Dr. Taylor and by the testimonials of the majority of intact men, the inner foreskin possesses a greater density of nerve endings. It is thought to be more erogenous than even the glans. The is no question that the foreskin is a highly erogenous tissue. This tremendous amount of sensitivity is lost completely when the forefold of the skin system is amputated. In addition to this, the most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum of the foreskin, is either partially or totally removed in most infant circumcisions. The frenulum is the continuation of the inner foreskin which attaches to the underside (ventral part) of the glans. Thus, a significant percentage, if not the majority, of erogenous nerve supply to the penis is removed in circumcision at birth.


Damage to the glans. The erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. This is further reduced by removal of the protective foreskin which leaves the glans permanently exposed. Unlike the shaft of the penis, and most of the rest of the body, the head of the penis, does not posses its own attached skin. This structure, like the eye ball and the gums of the mouth, is a somewhat naked structure. Its surface is non-keratinized, like that of the gums, the eye ball, and the clitoris in women. That means that it does not posses a protective thick layer like the keratinized skin of the outer penile skin system. Like the gums and the eye ball, the glans of the intact penis has a retractible skin covering. The skin covering of the glans is the foreskin. The eyelid is very similar in architecture to the foreskin. If the eyelid were removed and the eyeball were to become keratinized, you'd have a much harder time seeing. The same is true of the glans. It becomes artificially keratinized (dry, ha rdened, discolored, and wrinkled) as a result of permanent exposure, and thus less sensitive. Because most American men are circumcised and have a glans of this nature, it is harder to notice the abnormality. But just compare the glans of an intact man with that of a circumcised man next to each other and you'll notice a big difference. Thus, in addition to removing lots of erogenous nerve endings in the inner foreskin and frenulum, circumcision further desensitizes the remaining sensitivity of the glans by leaving it exposed.


Loss of skin mobility. The nerve endings in the glans are predominantly complex touch receptors also known as mechanoreceptors. This is different from the light touch receptors of the skin which detect surface friction. The mechanorecptors are best stimulated by massage action rather than surface friction. Thus, the glans is best stimulated to feel pleasure by a rolling massage action. With an ample and highly mobile skin system that rolls over the glans with pressure from the opposing surface, this optimal stimulation of the glans is achieved while avoiding direct friction of the delicate glans surface. Direct friction tends to fire off pain receptors causing irritation and also causes further keratinization of the glans. With the skin system of the penis significantly reduced by circumcision, the mobility is essentially gone and now the penis is a static mass with no dynamic self stimulation mechanism. Now, it must be rubbed. Direct friction is now the primary form of stimulation. So then circumcision further reduces erogenous sensitivity in the penis by reducing skin mobility and thus the ability to use the foreskin to massage the glans. The combination of foreskin and glans in concert results in an even higher level of stimulation which is unknown to the circumcised male.


17 Functions of the Foreskin


Sexual
1
Erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles

2
Acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation

3
Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)

4
Stimulates partner's genitalia, giving erotic pleasure

5
Supplies skin to cover the shaft in erection and prevent tightness

6
Stores pheromones and releases them on arousal

7
Stores and releases natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid)

8
Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal

9
Provides a seal against the vaginal wall to contain semen

Protective
10
Prevents the glans becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist

11
Protects the thin-skinned glans against injury

12
Protects the nerves of the glans, retaining their erotic function

13
In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal stenosis, (and UTIs?)

14
Provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the glans

15
Pigmented, it protects the unpigmented glans against sunburn

16
Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite, as Sir Ranulph Fiennes found on his epic transpolar walk.

Other
17
Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc.

18
Storage of contact lenses, smuggled jewels.

Question, where do cowboys carry there chew ?
Answer in there foreskin of course.


SUmthing i want to add. Cut penis's creat MORE friction. wich i belive is the #1 cause of std & hiv / aids transmissions. Friction leads to the penis rubbing raw and leads to openings on the skin wich is a direct path to transmission. FORESKIN creats alot less friction. Mother nature took millions of years to creat our penis's it has foreskin for a reason. those reasons are said above.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Westwood, you need to settle down. There are conflicting studies for everything so it's really hard to say what does what. I actually recently read one saying men who are not circumcised have greatly increased sensitivity but I have read others saying there is no difference (This link. I know it's from an anti-circumcision site but the PDF file appears to be a legit study). As both a health promotor and future health care provider I feel I can take an unbiased stance on this but I feel like you cannot. I am not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your constant use of winks and hidden insults presented in a playful manner.
The AIDS thing is getting a little ridiculous and far out of hand. It is something I have studied both formally and informally so I'd like to discuss it a little. WHO never meant for these results to be translated to a first world country with a relatively low incidence of AIDS (interestingly enough the USA has one of the highest rates of circumcision in the first world and also one of the highest rates of AIDS in the first world... hmmmmm, maybe there is more to it than foreskin status?). WHO is desperate and willing to try anything to decrease the spread of AIDS in Africa. It is extremely dangerous to promote such a thing to low educated people because findings are often misinterpreted. Many people in Africa now believe circumcision will prevent them from getting AIDS 100% and there is no need for condom use even though WHO is stressing there still is. This can be similar to how low educated people sometimes believe that the birth control pill will prevent them from getting an STD. The point is, this will never translate well in Western nations (nor does it need to translate, use a condom), it would be like asking a woman to cut off one of her breasts inorder to reduce her chance of getting breast cancer. Everyone, especially the media, is blowing these results out of proportion. The health comissioner of New York has stated he was misrepreseted as seen in this website --> http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2007/04/frieden-on-circumcision-the-times.html
Also, much more research needs to be done. One shocking study done in Africa found that although, when circumcised, the men's risk was decreased but the woman's was increased. It would be horrible if all these men got it done and their rates went down, however, the rate of women with the virus went up. Here is an interesting news article from the CBC --> http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/03/07/circumcision-hiv-women.html
Really it's just too hard to say any way what does what or doesn't stop AIDS. Everyone needs to take a step back and put things into perspective because next week there will be a new study saying something completely different. I feel WHO has been a little premature in it's suggestions but who knows.

 

[pauljy]

I must say I haven't read the whole thread yet, but this is a very interesting topic.

Has anyone yet pointed out the sensitivity survey that was published in this months British Journal of Urology?

I'm cut by the way, and have always wished I wasn't. My experience with uncut men is that they are much more sensitive than me, and seem to have more intense sensations, but that it doesn't really affect how long they last - I'd say that has more to do with good technique than anything else.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Everyone does have their biases, yes. But you seem to present your self as not caring either way on the issue and yet you fling insults and talk down to people. Voicing an opinion is fine but you seem to get insulted when someone voices their opinion. Someone can call circumcision genital mutilation if they want (a better term would probably be genital modification) and that is their opinion. I have friends who consider tattoos to be a mutilation of their body but my other friends who do have tattoos don't get offended. I am learning to not judge people on their beliefs (be that religious or otherwise) and just inform because that is what a good health care provider does. I am not here to judge people but present information. I feel like your attitude is judgemental and, quite frankly, insulting. The fact that you would even call a person's penis an "anteater" is de-humanizing even if presented in your *charmingly* playful manner.
My personal opinion on the matter is that it is a personal choice the individual should decide for themselves when they are ready to do so and can make an informed decision to what they want done with their body.
See you later, westwood.

 

[vowels]

i am uncut. i used to want to get circumcised when i was a bit younger but now i don't mind as much.

i was only able to roll my foreskin back completely at about age 15! before then i couldn't get it back the whole way cause it hadn't stretched enough. when i could finally pull it all the way back it needed a bit of a clean (err sorry, gross) but from then on i have never had an issue with hygiene. i had never been taught how to clean properly before. my penis is always super clean now!

as for the sensitiveness, before i could roll it back, it was so so super sensitive. (basically cause under the foreskin had never been exposed!) but a few year later through all the cleaning and touching of the glans the sensitivity is almost completely gone! i went from squealing like a girl at the touch to masturbating with the foreskin back. i guess it just takes time.

but then again, i'm only 17. but late :-/

 

[RRRalph]

i was only able to roll my foreskin back completely at about age 15! before then i couldn't get it back the whole way cause it hadn't stretched enough. when i could finally pull it all the way back it needed a bit of a clean.

Dude, that must have hurt rolling your foreskin back with such tension!

as for the sensitiveness, before i could roll it back, it was so so super sensitive. i went from squealing like a girl at the touch to masturbating with the foreskin back.

Hahhaha, you are quite hilarious. I hope you don't squeale anymore!

but then again, i'm only 17.

Ehm, you shouldn't have mentioned that you are underage

 

[PorthAnnwn]

Westwood,

Saying circumcision is OK is a value judgment as well.

It's definitely not seen as an "immoral" or unethical practice.

Whether it's seen as moral is irrelevant. What matters is if it is moral or not.

 

[CanadianGuy]

My point was that by resorting to insults and name calling effectively weakens any points you may of made. Some do see circumcision to be child abuse and that is their opinion. These individuals may be equally offended that someone would not consider it child abuse and that this practice is still allowed to go on. I don't think you can look at it from their side. I see both sides and I disagree with the AMA's policy since I don't think this is a decision the parents need to make at all and often they make it for the wrong reason (to look like dad) and that just isn't a justified reason to remove part of a neonate's healthy anatomy by any means.

Anyways, what do you do for a living, westwood? I am not sure if you mentioned it before but you said you were a memeber of the AMA. If you're in rehab you may be in what I am currently headed towards.

 

[PorthAnnwn]

Westwood,

It seemed like you were taking things a bit personally. It looks like you've stepped back a bit.

If I've contradicted myself please point it out and I'll address it. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that I claimed neonatal circumcision was done without anaesthetic. I later retracted that and posted a link showing that now anaesthetic is used. That's not back-peddling; it's a concession to information I didn't have before.

I'm not forcing circumcision down anyone's throat. On the contrary, it's you and Handsome Asshole attempting to impose your anti-circumcision values and beliefs on me and others who are pro choice or pro circumcision.

Quite the opposite. The reason I argue here is because I'm pro-choice. I value personal freedom and responsibility. Parents may make choices for their children if there is pressing need. There is no pressing need for circumcision in most cases.

Now, if a child had phimosis, for example, the parent would have the responsibility to have the child circumcised or otherwise treated.

FYI, every society or culture in the world has its own set of values and beliefs.

Culture doesn't create morality. If it does, then anything and anything could be considered conscionable if it happened in a culture that accepted it.

you must present conclusive or definitive scientific evidence to back your claims if you wish to effectively oppose circumcision.

I guess that should be the next step then.

BTW, I didn't even get near the moral issue until post #82. I have yet to use the term mutilation because it's inflammatory.

 

[CanadianGuy]

I have no intention of being an MD. They are middle management... but that is a whole different issue.

There actually is scientific evidence that it both physically hurts the infant (in the sense that they feel pain) and there have been studies saying that it does decrease pleasure. Sure there have been studies saying that it does not decrease sensitivity but then there are others saying it does. So to say there is no scientific evidence is not correct, it is just mixed.
The fact of the matter this is a healthy part of the body which has no reason to be removed so early on in life... especially in first world countries. I think this is a highly emotional issue for you or you would of not have come back. I have presented evidence in one of my posts but you seem to think your evidence is the only correct one. The "scientific evidence" on the matter is extremely mixed with no first world medical associations stating that a neonate should be circumcised (however, there are some who advise against it).
I don't know what you see as injury, but I see cutting off part of a person's body for really no apparent reason other than a cultural tradition to be a little bit injurious. I have no problem with someone wanting this procedure done to themselves but why not just wait until their children are old enough to decide for themselves? That is all I don't understand.

 

[theFallenGod]

As someone who is a former American and circumsized I will be the first one to admit that I feel as though I was mutilated as a child without my consent....

Giving parents the right to alter their child because of outdated beliefs is wrong...when does it stop...

the pros and cons of circumsicion are plentiful... I however HATE the fact that it was done to me...

you guys can post all the data you want about it being better for you...but remember people were uncut long before they were cut... historically....

Its how were born.... we should love ourselves for the way we were created NATURALLY as opposed to further mutilation for aesthetic reasons....

P.S. as someone who is trying to renew it... I have done plenty of research on the subject...while I do not profess to be an expert I can tell you that unless its for medical purposes as in the case of phimosis.... its an unnessecary procedure...

 

[theFallenGod]

wow....someone is bitter....

And if science were a reason to back something than explain why the U.S. is the ONLY country to back this procedure on such a wide scale?


IT STILL MUTILATION.....

AND UNNESSECARY AT THAT.....

 

[theFallenGod]

A former American? Well, if we're to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were ever an American or actually circumcized, you'd be fortunate. Unfortunately, there are quite a few uncircumcized men that claim to be circumcized in rendering complaint to fuel the argument and debate over this issue. This is an old trick, and not a very clever one at that. Thanks to the anonymity of the internet, it's flooded with such complaints. Simply put, there's no way to verify such complaint. As a matter of fact, the AMA doesn't receive 1/1000,000th of the complaints regarding circumcision that are expressed on the internet.

this is bullshit....just another stab at people who disagree with your narrow minded view on how everyone ought to be mutilated so it makes you feel better

Another fact is that the vast majority of circumcized men in the U.S don't have any complaints, and the majority of Americans agree that parents should have the right to choose circumcision for their children. Unfortunately, you were born in the U.S. Maybe there's some way you can sue your parents in Europe or wherever you live now. You should probably see a psychologist as well to help you come to terms with your penis. Regardless, unless you're having functional problems, you should probably stop your sobbing. Perhaps you could even buy a cozy for your glans penis to keep you warm all of those cool nights. Whatever you do, go tell it to someone who cares like the anti-circumcision fanatics.

back it up with stone cold facts buddy....

The truth of the matter is that the AMA doesn't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of its policy on circumcision. Why should it? There's really no credible or definitive scientific evidence behind the argument that circumcision is an unethical practice which causes harm, injury, or alters the function of the penis. The U.S. produces more medical research than any nation on the earth which benefits all nations around the world. Thanks to that research, both morbidity and mortality have significantly dropped around the world. So why should the AMA be concerned about a few crybabies complaining that they lost their prepuce anyway? Let's put things in perspective. The anti-circumcision movement is largely a political movement, not a scientific movement, since it really has no credible science backing it. No science=bullshit, plain and simple.

your entire arguement reeks of bullshit my friend.... someone disagrees with you on the FACT that you are born that way and probably shouldn't really fuck with the way mother nature intended us to be and you get offended because again it shatters your narrowminded view of your little reality.....

Deal with it... you have been brainwashed into thinking that what was done to you was good for you and any arguement to the contrary is not going to change the fact that your parents fucked up against mother nature....

I am dealing with it by going through procedures to have mine replaced...because a cut dick isn't how nature intended us to be....

So using natural methods I am renewing my foreskin.... so I can be the way I was supposed to be and not the way some fucked up outdated medical practise mutilated me to be....

FACT is that the US and Isreal (for religious purposes) are the only countries to regularly practise this procedure....

Guess what...sometimes the U.S. is wrong ...especially about pushing a practise that was originally meant to prevent boys from masturbating as medical science built up from religious beliefs.....


Plus check your facts bud...the AAP (American Academy of Pedatrics) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary.

If you don't believe its cited all over the internet by several medical sites....

 

[Buddah420]

Both of you need to calm down and stop this verbose and winded argument. Also westwood, you should have learned back in high school that using an online source such as wikipedia is not acceptable by any quality English departement as proof of your point. Definately not acceptable by AMA Journal Standards. At any rate this ethnocentrism needs to stop and all sides need to be evaluated. Sorry if you feel America's medical care is the best in the world, but there are many other qualified people who highly disagree.
There are countless flaws in both your arguments that it would take weeks to do the research and find out the correct information and post it for all to see, so I won't waste the time.

However, I do have one thing to contribute to this discusion. Being a man of science westwood, you would probably hold a high regard for evolution. Well, as you know, people change and mutations occur on the most basic genetic levels to help our species adapt to our environment better than any form of medicine can. So answer me this, why after the thousands and thousands of years are children still born with their foreskin. Perhaps because it does serve some higher purpose, and is the healthiest way to live, despite the AMA's stance. I mean give me a break. If there was a need for humans to live without there foreskin, mother nature would have solved that problem long before any man with profound scientific knowledge would have come up with it.

If it were not for some egocentric doctor thinking his penis was ugly with the extra skin, and inventing the bright idea that this skin needed to be removed forcefully from every person at birth simply for hygeine and appearance issues, then every one would be the exact way nature intended. Don't get me wrong there are instances that circumcision may, and have been necessary for select people, but no evidence to support the need for ever human being to be altered by another at birth.

All I'm getting at is you both need to respect others postitions, opinions, and beliefs, because there is just as much evidence to the contrary in both your positions as there is evidence supporting them. Human beliefs are not natures law, and opinion is stricly opinion. Blah, blah, blah...hopefully this tangent you both are on stops here.