Acucophilia

I am a gay male from the U.K. and I am an acucophiliac, which is the worst thing to be in Britain.

It means (for me) only being interested in sex with a circumcised man. I have been fascinated by circumcision since discovering years ago in the school showers my best mate was cut (but straight) and the first guy I had sex with at 18 was also cut (he was Jewish). Here in the UK very few men are cut at birth, some do get it done later for health reasons (mainly) and others for aesthetics.

I know uncut men are clean, but there is just something about a foreskin which I just can´t take - and sadly I am uncut myself, and I wouldnt have the guts to get it done as an adult - I am a devout coward.

There seems to be very few porn video sites for this particular interest.Just to hear a bloke say he is circumcised turns me on.

Are there other guys out there in the UK who are like me?

As a circumcised bisexual male I understand completely your concern with uncut cocks. I have been with several men and have always preferred cut. For some reason I am always concerned just how clean he really is in there. Plus a fully hard cock is just beautiful to look at. I have heard that uncut guys say they are more sensitive but I see no reason why really and all the cut guys I have been with, including me , are pretty darn sensitive there 😜🔥

@Demanton

I am surprised! Most on bi and gay males I had contact with in past 15 years were circumcised. Those not, maybe 20% were older - born before 1970s and from countryside. I had impression that circumcision was a standard procedure for newborns in UK, similarly to US.

I had impression that circumcision was a standard procedure for newborns in UK, similarly to US.

Aside from Israel and Muslim majority countries, it is only in South Korea, the US and Australia where you will find a majority of circumcised males.

The UK is pretty low at 20%. Possibly because historically it used to be a thing for the nobility or those who were destined for colonial service. It originated with members of the East India Company being required to be cut, in order not to offend foreign rulers/dignitaries etc who often in previous centuries refused to conduct business with an uncircumcised infidel.

Laugh or smirk if you will, but such matters could be of grave consequence in a colonial empire. Just think of how the Indian Mutiny of 1857 started: over what kind of animal fat was used to grease rifles and cartridges.

@agracier I stated that maybe 20% were NOT circumcised.

Interesting story re colonial trend, but I seriously doubt its validity.

Britain has always been a very class-ridden society. It is true that the majority of circumcised babies came from the more üpper crust

ranks (certainly until Princes William and Harry) all Royal male babies were circumcised, but those of us in the working class, which included me) rarely were, unless there was some medical need for it, because the NHS refused to subsidize it, so if you had a baby in an NHS hospital you would have

to get him circumcised by a doctor or clinic afterwards. I think that is a great shame. My parents couldnt afford to get me done and not many

did.

@agracier I stated that maybe 20% were NOT circumcised.

The present percentage of circumcised males in the UK is 20% being circumcised. So, the mirror opposite of what you thought.

And don't forget that of the 20% in the UK, a large percentage of that number will be because of religion. The UK has a substantial percentage of Muslim inhabitants/citizens.

Here is a handy list of percentages by country. Interesting is the rate for the Isle of Man specifically compared to the UK.

https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5/tables/1

Interesting story re colonial trend, but I seriously doubt its validity.

There are very interesting and amusing accounts of 18th century EIC representatives first being required to be examined (politely in private) by a physician in order to ascertain their circumcision status before getting down to actual political or business negotiations with local Muslim rulers. And when Empire building or being allowed to engage in trade and make fortunes is at stake, what's that worth compared to the small discomfort of a circumcision?

I think you underestimate how Muslims often felt about (Christian) infidels in previous centuries. Certainly you've read about dead or wounded British/European soldiers being cut after a battle, often enough by the women.

There is a good reason why Rudyard Kipling wrote this and why it is remembered so:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

and the women come out to cut up what remains,

jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

and go to your gawd like a soldier.

@agracier I stated that maybe 20% were NOT circumcised.

Interesting story re colonial trend, but I seriously doubt its validity.

@gauguin - @agracier's statements are correct. The UK is not comparable to the US in that regard. The circumcision rate in this country is approximately 15 to 20%, and a large proportion of that being Muslim, also some Jewish.

@agracier & @DrZ

I would be very sceptical re such statistics. I would put them in same category as stats regarding penis size or number of sexual partners or intercourses, etc.

I understands that my personal experience is subjective and country total can be quite different. However, I doubt I was meeting Jews or Muslims exclusively.

@agracier & @DrZ

I would be very sceptical re such statistics.

@gauguin - Whether or not you like the stats, it is well known here in the UK that a great majority of British males (not counting Muslims and Jews) are uncircumcised. The UK certainly does not have the same ideas about this as the US. You are mistaken if you believe it does.

@DrZ

Once more I am going to say, my personal experience, stretching over 10 years in UK, is completely opposite to those stats.

I am saying that all Brits are circumcised, but I doubt 20% is correct number.

Once more I am going to say, my personal experience, stretching over 10 years in UK, is completely opposite to those stats.

I am saying that all Brits are circumcised, but I doubt 20% is correct number.

It might probably be that the partners you've encountered have somewhat similar notions as you do, come from the same social groups. That means you are experiencing a sort of confirmation bias amongst the people you meet, because you are looking for partners like yourself and you end up finding them. You end up interacting with people like yourself. Most people do. People interact primarily with like-minded people.

These kind of statistics on circumcision are confirmed again and again, they don't lie and why would they? What would be the purpose? Your number of partners, be it in the dozens or even hundreds, are not significantly large enough to have an impact on a population of 67 million.

I looked at the percentage for my country (Belgium) and found 22%. I find that a shockingly high number because (through gossip from my wife amongst other ways) I know that none of my male friends are circumcised. The 22% is mostly from Muslim/Jewish inhabitants. Without them I doubt the percentage would even be a low double digit. The same for the UK (and France, the Netherlands would be lower than at present while we are it).

It is known/said that circumcision in European countries is more prevalent amongst the male gay population. Perhaps that is what you have experienced. Looking for and finding partners amongst a like-minded subgroup.

Looks like we managed to derail this thread completely.

These kind of statistics on circumcision are confirmed again and again, they don't lie and why would they?

That is whole point. How do you know those statistics are valid? How confirms them?

To my knowledge, all are, like any other stats regarding sex, based on self-reporting. Hence highly unreliable.

Assuming someone tries to do proper research based on reporting from health services.

In first place, religious circumcision is not performed by medical professionals, hence the only number is assumption that every male from certain ethnic / religious group is circumcised. This comes with a big errors, overestimating for Jews, underestimating for Muslims. Actual number of the latter is not well known due to immigration.

Then, circumcision performed by medical services, since it is not life saving or treatment, I seriously doubt it is uniformly reported, hence numbers of performed procedures are quite likely underestimated. And that applies only for state operated / subsidised services (European thing). Not everyone uses those, so they are not in stats at all.

Last source would be reporting from family doctors. I doubt there is such data at all. But if it was, again, not reliable, since not every GP would bother to fill in yet another form/check box. Then, most often there is no need to show genitals to GP. So GP would have to ask, many would not just to spare potentially intrusive question and time to report it. And so on. Bottom line - no reliable data is available.

And so on. Bottom line - no reliable data is available.

One can quibble in statistics about a few percentages more or less one way or the other. Is it 10% or perhaps 15% or 5%?

But when statistics consistently give results around 20%, there is no way possible they will ever truly be in the 80% range.

As a very ordinary working class lad born in the East End of London, I can assure the sceptics that VERY few British white boys are circumcised I only ever saw one at school, and as three forms used to used the changing room and showers at the same time, that is a very low figure, and though I am not exactly the worlds greatest lover, I have only ever met one circumcised guy as an adult, and he was Jewish. Believe me - I have looked!. I have also used sports clubs and (gay) suana and the men all come with a foreskin attached.

But when statistics consistently give results around 20%, there is no way possible they will ever truly be in the 80% range.

The issue is that those are not statistics. As well, I would not be very surprised, if majority of those 'statistics' are based on same source.

@Demanton It seems I had a weird luck then. Or crashed some secret Jewish clubs, lol

It seems I had a weird luck then. Or crashed some secret Jewish clubs, lol

If you were looking for male on male sex, then yes, you probably did 'stumble' onto a subgroup of (almost certainly promiscuous) gays.

There is a school of thought amongst this group that circumcision will give protection against many STDs, including HIV, because of the theory that a hardening of skin on the glans will prevent infection.

This is a belief that is also apparently prevalent among many African males, thereby giving them the notion/illusion that being sexually adventurous with many partners is of little risk if one is circumcised.

At the risk of further derailing this thread, when visiting a photo website (that yahoo used to have), I notice a caption regarding garter belts as suspenders and they seem to be colour blind to color AND I turn on explicit, I see that there is an uncut penis poking out of their panties (just my observation).

That said, to get back on track, a circumcised member (to me) is much more attractive esp. if it wedged between a nice pair of tits.