Ladies: do you prefer a guy that is circumcised ? Or not ?

I wish I still had my foreskin......its ridiculous that in todays world we still have the ridiculous notion that circumcision is the best way to go for the child and his health. circumcision is a violation to a mans body even before he knows what life is.

Is there anyone that could answer two questions for me pse.

A) Most countries quite rightly forbid female genital mutilation, but permit circumcision - both practices where the child has no say and is a gross violation of their bodies - why?

B) Unless for medical reasons, why do people have it done anyway?

In America, circumcision only became widespread with the medicalization of childbirth in the 20th century. Studies were done showing that circumcision helped prevent certain infections and diseases. However, most of those studies were later shown to be seriously flawed. As far as some of the posts below that refer to it as neat and clean - yeah I guess I would agree with that - but that is the equivalent of preferring that women/girls with large labias be trimmed back as well. You know - so its neat and clean.

A) Most countries quite rightly forbid female genital mutilation, but permit circumcision - both practices where the child has no say and is a gross violation of their bodies - why?

B) Unless for medical reasons, why do people have it done anyway?

I guess you can always say that societies can be hypocritical about so many things, male circumcision being one of the more flagrant instances. Underage female genital modification is condemned amidst howls of outrage, while underage males receive no legal protection whatsoever when it comes to the question of circumcising or not. And if circumcision is not a genital modification, then I don't know what is.

First of all, it should be remembered that aside from religious dictated circumcision (against which there is simply no logical refutation possible, it being considered a question of perceived divine will), there is only one country where circumcision is routinely customary and that is the US. There was a period in the early/mid 19th centuries when quack physicians or just plain money-grabbing quacks tout court, promoted the great masturbation scare upon parts of the public. Simply put it stated that youngsters who masturbate (boys mainly of course) were putting their mental and physical health at serious risk. Any method that could prevent masturbation was deemed acceptable. One of the proposed methods was circumcision, the reasoning going: circumcision lessen the sensitivity of the glans and less sexual pleasure will therefore dampen or ideally curb the urge to masturbate. And since circumcisions were easy and lucrative to perform, there was soon a thriving business in performing the little operation. This went over wonderfully well in households where sexuality was still a morbid issue or in hyper religious households that preached fire and brimstone and the inborn evil of humankind.

In addition to this ethical stance, the 20th century also experienced 2 world wars in which huge numbers of males were conscripted and put into military service. The military loves regimentation and rightly places great importance on hygiene. But link a perceived hygiene benefit to circumcision and you get a medical corps in the (US) military that thought that circumcision was an easy answer to many hygiene and venereal disease issues. So, in the US at any rate, military draftees were not considered properly healthy unless they were circumcised. Hence virtual mandatory circumcisions for draftees who were still intact.

This mindset was still prevalent after the end of WWII, especially since the military draft in the US continued until the 1970's.

And once Americans got into the habit of circumcising, it seemed to be a hard habit to kick. There was the 'he needs to look like his father' argument, or 'all the kids at school are cut, he shouldn't be different' or just the plain inertia of ignorance, or to put it more politely - social custom.

And now I fear, as if there aren't wars enough left to fight, there is still a great Culture War being fought out in various ways. Circumcision has also come to be identified with an old fashioned way of looking at society, with a certain forlorn longing for times past, an antipathy for change and social renewal and is one of those things that despite rational thinking, is still advocated and defended, just because it is a relic from the past.

I like uncut penises, they are so fun to play with! The foreskin hides the glans head so you always want to see what's underneath. I am disappointed my parents had me circumcised, I really wish I still had my foreskin but have been slowly restoring it. There is a lot of time and stretching involved but I have been able to get to the point where the rim of my glans is covered by my skin most of the time. You can never regain the sensations in the nerve endings of the foreskin after a penis has been circumcised but you can partially stretch skin over the glans again with enough time.

Definitely circumcised, they are not as sensitive and can last longer....Just my opinion

Thank goodness fewer and fewer males in the US are being circumcised in today's society for no reason. I have noticed more and more males in the US who are 30 or so and under that still have their foreskin, so more and more parents today must be viewing it as not necessary...maybe soon the US will catch up with the rest of the world!

maybe soon the US will catch up with the rest of the world!

Don't hold your breath.

I have never seen a real live uncircumcised penis, so I have no idea if it feels any different. As far as aesthetics go, I think a circumcised penis looks prettier..at least in pictures. ;-)

I have never seen a real live uncircumcised penis, so I have no idea if it feels any different. As far as aesthetics go, I think a circumcised penis looks prettier..at least in pictures. ;-)

I agree..in pictures circumcised penises do look prettier. I've come across a couple (non medfet related) and when it comes to hand jobs and blow jobs I definitely think it is easier with an uncircumcised penis. They seem to be more sensitive.

I agree..in pictures circumcised penises do look prettier. I've come across a couple (non medfet related) and when it comes to hand jobs and blow jobs I definitely think it is easier with an uncircumcised penis. They seem to be more sensitive.

I definitely agree with you that circumcised penises look prettier--by a large margin. I agree also that giving a hand job to an uncircumcised guy is easier than circumcised guys since all you have to do is slide that foreskin back and forth over the head of the penis. I had an uncircumcised friend a number of years ago that I beat off on a regular basis and had quite a bit of fun doing it. I learned with a little experience that we both enjoyed the hand job more if I exaggerated the downstroke so that the foreskin no only came back to expose the head of the penis but to fully evert the foreskin, paused for a fraction of a second, and then pulled the foreskin back over the head. I did this really forcefully to put a lot of tension on the frenulum without being so rough that it was traumatized. I have given hand jobs to some circumcised men who had enough looseness in the skin of their penises, that they were easy to beat off just by moving their shaft skin back and forth. With most circumcised men though, I find you need to lube their penises up and use the hand back and forth across the head. I absolutely disagree about blow jobs. It is much easier and more pleasant to suck a circumcised penis.

I agree with most of what you have said..I have found that uncircumcised penises are more sensitive in general. That makes blow jobs easier

I agree..in pictures circumcised penises do look prettier.

In cultures that do not circumcise, a cut penis can be construed as looking like a sexually excited organ, as if the male in question is so randy that he cannot control himself. And anyone familiar with classical sculpture will know that depicting uncircumcised organs was far and away the norm - even in such famous examples as Michelangelo's David (Biblical Jewish hero and all that).

In fact, if you grow up in a country where males are not routinely circumcised, viewing circed males can even (initially) appear as vaguely threatening to some people. After all, by exposing the glans it looks as if they showing off their immediate interest in engaging in sex. And in public that is not always thought to be all that polite ...

I'm just mentioning this, because appreciation of body parts is a cultural thing and in many instances relative to how one is brought up.

In cultures that do not circumcise, a cut penis can be construed as looking like a sexually excited organ, as if the male in question is so randy that he cannot control himself.

This is one reason I find circumcised penises so hot! They look sexual and ready to go, often in contrast to the owners' overall look. Having the head exposed and the meatus visible just looks as though it has been prepared for a sexual encounter.

I agree with most of what you have said..I have found that uncircumcised penises are more sensitive in general. That makes blow jobs easier

I think what you mean by "easier" is that the uncircumcised man ejaculates quicker than a circumcised man. That may be true due to their increased sensitivity. What I was referring to is that the head of the circumcised penis is more readily accessible and the technique for performing the blow job does not have to account for keeping the foreskin out of the way.

I've never had sex with an uncircumcised man, so I really can't judge the pros and cons of it. Visually, however, I like the look of a circumcised penis. My ex was circumcised, and my son was circumcised in the hospital at birth. It was recommended by our doctors, and, I thought it made sense (at the time) that his penis should be the same in appearance as his father's.

Now, I'm wondering if this was really necessary. I doubt that I would have a baby circumcised now if faced with the decision. I really can't see any reason for removal of the foreskin.

C.

Oh no! I missed this circumcision thread. Well everyone here knows my thoughts on the matter. I can only add one thing. I'm reminded of a book I once read by Joseph Wambaugh. He called penises either helmets or anteaters. You can figure out which is which. Since I'm male I don't find either one very attractive. I do find human bodies attractive sometimes but their appendages leave something to be desired esthetically. Functional yes but worthy of hyperbole? I don't think so.

I'm reminded of a book I once read by Joseph Wambaugh. He called penises either helmets or anteaters.

Isn't he one of those crime writers with the literary style of a policeman's locker room after an all night binge? Not all that subtle I have the impression ...

Isn't he one of those crime writers with the literary style of a policeman's locker room after an all night binge? Not all that subtle I have the impression ...

He was a Los Angeles police officer who wrote police procedurals from the realistic viewpoint of the cop.

Here's a question, also for the ladies or anyone else really:

Everyone appreciates great art, at least one hopes. Does anyone know of any statues of world renowned male nudes in which the male figure is circumcised? I've been trying to think of one and have come up with nothing ... and remember, 'world renowned', not a statue from a local art gallery or art school.

I prefer a man who is circumcised. I was only with an uncircumcised man once. It didn't feel any different when we made love but I love the way a circumcised penis looks.

I didn't say it was high literature. It merely was escapist fun from a cops point of view. As for circumcised males in good art I don't have a clue. I do know that David by Michaelangelo is not circumcised. But what did he know? Now that was a joke.

Here's a question, also for the ladies or anyone else really:

Everyone appreciates great art, at least one hopes. Does anyone know of any statues of world renowned male nudes in which the male figure is circumcised? I've been trying to think of one and have come up with nothing ... and remember, 'world renowned', not a statue from a local art gallery or art school.

Start here http://www.circlist.com/history/art.html I find it interesting that young Jesus was depicted as uncircumcised. Not likely for a nice Jewish kid.

Now recall the art of the modern masters such as ManRay or Robert Mapplethorpe. If they worked with 20th century North American models, they were likely to be circumcised.

Now recall the art of the modern masters such as ManRay or Robert Mapplethorpe. If they worked with 20th century North American models, they were likely to be circumcised.

They were photographers. Photographs are so easy to make compared to a statue. Art photographs maybe somewhat less so. But the point being that on the scale of art as endurance and lasting effort, sculpting stands higher than photography ...

Anyway, Man Ray was known for his portrait work, mostly non nude and for his nudes of Lee Miller 😃. And he worked mainly in France anyway.

I find it inteesting that young Jesus was depicted as uncircumcised. Not likely for a nice Jewish kid.

See, sort of goes to show what I was trying to point out ... the artistic canon of Western Art tends almost overwhelmingly towards the non circumcised ...

See, sort of goes to show what I was trying to point out ... the artistic canon of Western Art tends almost overwhelmingly towards the non circumcised ...

I think that's largely dependant on the preponderance of the penis in the artist's culture.

I've never had sex with an uncircumcised man, so I really can't judge the pros and cons of it. Visually, however, I like the look of a circumcised penis. My ex was circumcised, and my son was circumcised in the hospital at birth. It was recommended by our doctors, and, I thought it made sense (at the time) that his penis should be the same in appearance as his father's.

Now, I'm wondering if this was really necessary. I doubt that I would have a baby circumcised now if faced with the decision. I really can't see any reason for removal of the foreskin.

C.

Why not ask your son and your ex-husband and find out whether either or both of them would have preferred to have their foreskins left intact and ask them the reasons for their preference? I would be very interested in hearing what you find out.

It's an existential question no doubt. Many males have weighed in on this topic. There seems to be no general consensus.

Does availability or accessibility play a part here. Because circumcision is an important part of some faiths, circumcised men will be more prevalent in areas where those faiths are most common. For example, circumcised men may be more scarce in Wyoming than they are in New York. So women in Wyoming may simply use what's available. Sorry if that sounds like a meat market.

I've always said that the average woman likes what she's acclimated to. If she grew up in the NYC area in the 60s and 70s, she's probably acclimated to circumcised men. Kentucky, not so much.

For men's preference, the population to ask is very small - sexually active men without sexual dysfunction who had a cosmetic circumcision as an adult.

Because circumcision is an important part of some faiths, circumcised men will be more prevalent in areas where those faiths are most common. For example, circumcised men may be more scarce in Wyoming than they are in New York. So women in Wyoming may simply use what's available. Sorry if that sounds like a meat market.

American circumcision has never been a question of religion. In fact, traditional Christian doctrine since late Roman times forbids circumcision (just as it frowned on tattooing - both being considered a desecration of the body per Hellenic cultural tradition and as an impediment for the Resurrected on Judgement Day). Of course there are always work-arounds to doctrine when necessary and it seems that that is what happened with circumcision in the US starting in the late 19th century. Not to mention the fact that there are a gazillion sub divisions of Christianity around to begin with. And no expectation of doctrinal uniformity.

The only (main) faiths that require circumcision are Judaism and Islam ... and despite all the cultural and ethnic diversity one finds in present day USA, neither are mainstream nor present in any great numbers.

Perhaps what you meant was that people tend to stay within their own ethnic and cultural group for sexual partners, on the whole. So it becomes not so much a question of the ladies using what is available, but more of not knowing anyone outside of their social, cultural and ethnic circles to partner up with in the first place.

As for the examples: Wyoming being more of a Heartland kind of state, expect more circumcised Marlboro Men and New York being the original ethnic melting pot, expect more foreign born New Yorkers and hence non-circumcised ...