Never seen an uncut dick ever in person, so basically the 2 dicks ive seen in my life are both cut. However, when I see uncut dicks in some porn clips, it looks pretty hot as well, so it doesnt really matter. A dick is still a dick, uncut or cut.
Additionally, it really depends on someone's preference and culture. The norm here in my country is that circumcision should be performed before adolescence. I think 99.9% of all male filipinos are all circumcised. And we know, it varies from culture to culture or from one country to another, so lets just respect the norms or practices in different parts of the world. Hence, its still a dick, cut or uncut. What matters here is the size, lol. Kidding.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Uncut plz. You get better sex that ways
•
MisterTinkles Wrote:Actually, it was for medical reasons.
Its actually more difficult to keep foreskin clean, than if you dont have it.
You don't say! 75% of men in the world have foreskins, the medical establishment seems not to be snowed under with the resulting problems. In this instance washing is preferable to amputation.
MisterTinkles Wrote:Circumcision became popular "back when" because when "cleanliness is next to godliness" became part of the religious chants...medical technology was not advanced enough to solve the issues of some pretty gross things that happen to mens penis's when they get infected from dirty foreskin.
Repeat it as often as you like, gross things do not happen to uncircumcised penises except vanishingly rarely.
It became popular "back when" because it was an indelible tribal marker. It had nothing to do with cleanliness. It was performed without aneasthetic, or antiseptics using crude instruments in dirty surroundings. Losing a few to infection was considered a price worth paying for tribal cohesion.
If the "back when" you refer to is the promotion of circumcision in America during the early twentieth century, it was promoted by quacks (themselves uncircumcised) as variously a cure for malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, headache, alcoholism, criminality, club-foot, and heart disease. The original promoters never used the hygiene argument because they themselves were not circumcised. Hygiene came along for the next generation and was useful because it turned out that malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, headache, alcoholism, criminality, club-foot, and heart disease were unaffected by circumcision.
Infections from dirty foreskin are rare indeed. If access to normal hygiene is so bad that it can occur, surgery is not to be recommended.
MisterTinkles Wrote:So some religious nut decided it was better to cut off the offending part, so when the boy became a man, he wouldnt have the problems associated with foreskin.
There are no problems associated with foreskins. Seventy five percent of the worlds men have one and are not disproportionately burdened with problems as a result. Of those routinely circumcised for religious reasons the vast majority are muslims (1.6 billion). For the most part they don't circumcise until preadolescence so they seem untroubled by hygiene issues among young boys, a group not best known for its affinity to soap and water.
MisterTinkles Wrote:Even today, its a medical preference to have it done, simply because of possible bacterial infections. But a lot of people dont have it done anymore, because it adds on to the medical bills for the baby, and some people just dont believe in it anymore.
No major medical body in the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. Bacterial infections are treated with antibiotics, not amputation.
•
well, speaking for myself, in 1965 when I was born, they told my parents that if I was circumcised, there would be less of a risk for penile cancer or a host of health problems. my parents, silly them, listened to the doctor and had me circumcised. Funny thing was, no no one ever asked me.
They certainly didn't do it for aesthetic reasons. The pediatrician/obstetrecian whoever my folks were talking to with the technology almost 50 years ago told them that it would cause me fewer health problems in my adulthood. So against my mother's fury and abhorrence at me having to endure any pain, she gave them permission.
having said that, no one has really mentioned a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briss
•
I think that at the time in 1965, conventional medical wisdom was that it was more healthy for the baby.
With the medical knowledge they had then...
If that has been debunked, hopefully that is not being done as a matter of routine anymore. I have had friends (moms) who have given birth in the last few years and they've said it's something that's not done routinely as the health risks of being uncut have pretty much been debunked. It used to be done almost routinely, now you pretty much have to go out of your way to do it. I don't know, just what I've been told.
But they didn't know that back then and were probably trying to err on the side of caution...
•
cardiganwearer Wrote:You don't say! 75% of men in the world have foreskins, the medical establishment seems not to be snowed under with the resulting problems. In this instance washing is preferable to amputation.
Repeat it as often as you like, gross things do not happen to uncircumcised penises except vanishingly rarely.
It became popular "back when" because it was an indelible tribal marker. It had nothing to do with cleanliness. It was performed without aneasthetic, or antiseptics using crude instruments in dirty surroundings. Losing a few to infection was considered a price worth paying for tribal cohesion.
If the "back when" you refer to is the promotion of circumcision in America during the early twentieth century, it was promoted by quacks (themselves uncircumcised) as variously a cure for malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, headache, alcoholism, criminality, club-foot, and heart disease. The original promoters never used the hygiene argument because they themselves were not circumcised. Hygiene came along for the next generation and was useful because it turned out that malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, headache, alcoholism, criminality, club-foot, and heart disease were unaffected by circumcision.
Infections from dirty foreskin are rare indeed. If access to normal hygiene is so bad that it can occur, surgery is not to be recommended.
There are no problems associated with foreskins. Seventy five percent of the worlds men have one and are not disproportionately burdened with problems as a result. Of those routinely circumcised for religious reasons the vast majority are muslims (1.6 billion). For the most part they don't circumcise until preadolescence so they seem untroubled by hygiene issues among young boys, a group not best known for its affinity to soap and water.
No major medical body in the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. Bacterial infections are treated with antibiotics, not amputation.
Thank you for making this reply, I was going to but had no time due to my play.
 Saved me some work x3
•
It's interesting to see how different is the general point of view about circumcision in Europe and in America.
In France some people consider it like a crime, as if you take children's liberty away, and here I read that if you're uncut you're automatically dirty. Well both extremes shock me.
I'm cut (because of the religion) and personnally, I prefer uncut guys (well, I don't really care btw) because it's something more to play with and I don't know, it's a bit like a thing which hides something more intime to discover 
Well, sure it has to be clean (OK, I'm French, I like smelly cheese, however I wouldn't taste the "dick-cheese" :biggrin: )but it's in the education to clean it and I've never met dirty uncut ones yet!
•
rover330 Wrote:well, speaking for myself, in 1965 when I was born, they told my parents that if I was circumcised, there would be less of a risk for penile cancer or a host of health problems. my parents, silly them, listened to the doctor and had me circumcised. Funny thing was, no no one ever asked me.
They certainly didn't do it for aesthetic reasons. The pediatrician/obstetrecian whoever my folks were talking to with the technology almost 50 years ago told them that it would cause me fewer health problems in my adulthood. So against my mother's fury and abhorrence at me having to endure any pain, she gave them permission.
having said that, no one has really mentioned a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briss
Sadly to me these pediatricians sound very much like car salespeople instead of doctors. We're talking about removing or preserving a part of a male's anatomy.
At a car dealership right after the sale of the car you're assaulted by the salesperson to have sold to you extended warranties, paint protection,etc.
This is a procedure done at a hospital, it's not checking on/off options for your new car. Also it should be the boy's choice, not the parents. Sounds like sales pitch from the doctor to the parents. I mean, Has the mother ever washed her penis? and can she make an informed decision?
To those who are cut and enjoy it, fine, and I think I would prefer my partner to be uncut. But I certainly wouldn't let that be a deciding factor between me and the love of my life.
That said, when I was born in 1969 my parents decided against my being circumcised. In fact not only was it on the paperwork, my father had to chase of the nurses who was obviously on autopilot to have me whisked away and have it done.
•
Posts: 2,797
Threads: 40
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
I'm a : Gay Man in an Open Gay Relationship
Starsign:  Virgo
Mood:
I prefer uncut.
Mainly because there's nothing to lose, sexually speaking. More to play with. Also, I find them more visually attractive, not sure why.
Though, I have no experience with either cut or uncut.
•
I'm cut but it's a little unusual in the UK so I've only been with two other guys who have been. Whatever people say, I think if you're uncut you do have to be a little more careful with hygiene. I think I prefer uncut, but only very marginally - it's not really an issue for me.
•
|
