FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Swingers Chat

Cut or uncut...

Jump to newest
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs

I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel.

Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *umpleteazerWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire

I might just be very unobservant but I don't think I've ever had a cut one. Does it actually make that much difference to the experience?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs


"I might just be very unobservant but I don't think I've ever had a cut one. Does it actually make that much difference to the experience? "

You had better ask somebody else....I've only ever known mine cut, so can't possibly comment.

The husband in question mentioned that she liked the skin of an uncut cock...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Makes no difference to me at all - other than that I'd imagine a cut cock is easier to keep clean! Xx

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A cock is a cock in my book

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm cut, and have had women comment that my end seems bigger because of this.. But as the poster has said have no experience myself so can't comment but will be intrigued by responses..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff

I prefer uncut. I like to play with the foreskin and tease, I also find I don't need extra lube with uncut. I don't mind cut though, feels the same when inside

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Prefer uncut but also depends on the cock

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *emini1637Woman
over a year ago

Warwickshire

I like either but weirdly I've been with more cut than uncut, although I like to circle the tip of my tongue under the foreskin mmm

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Makes no difference to me at all - other than that I'd imagine a cut cock is easier to keep clean! Xx"
Not really. I clean under my foreskin twice a year whether it needs it or not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs


"Makes no difference to me at all - other than that I'd imagine a cut cock is easier to keep clean! Xx Not really. I clean under my foreskin twice a year whether it needs it or not. "

lmfao...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs


"Makes no difference to me at all - other than that I'd imagine a cut cock is easier to keep clean! Xx"

Well that's all good then

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *he Gentleman CallerMan
over a year ago

Southampton


"A cock is a cock in my book "

and not just in your book either I'd imagine

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A cock is a cock in my book

and not just in your book either I'd imagine "
For some of us with a foreskin it can be one of the biggest drawbacks in life?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A cock is a cock in my book "
Surely not? if you read some verifications there are various opinions gawjus suckable thick cocks that keep coming and cumming

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts

I'll admit I'm not a fan of sucking/wanking cut cocks but I wouldn't not meet someone just because of that...

- Amy. x

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

MrsKink has tried both and says she has no preference. The on thing she doesn't like are tight foreskins that don't role down.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut.

Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits.

All my boys are circumcised too.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I.am uncut

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otsoSnowWhiteWoman
over a year ago

My Ice Castle! South Wales


"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel.

Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?"

I quite like cut cocks. Ex husband had his done.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I prefer sucking a cut one, wanking an uncut one and no preference with sex.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *KOZCouple
over a year ago

Kent

I'm so glad you posted this! Our situation is a little similar in that we may look for someone in particular for a joint meet. My partner is cut (ps I love it, the head is fully exposed all the time which just excites me everytime i look at him!) and he has a huge fantasy about me sucking another cut cock. So far, he's the only one I've been with.

On the flip side, he absolutely loves watching me play with an uncut guy, the way the foreskin roles back and forth and i can play with it with my tongue (depending on how tight it is of course).

I guess some people come on here to act out a particular fantasy and they're looking for the right role? Who knows - you might be the perfect fit in someone elses story...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'll have one of each please

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs


"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one. "

Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I guess some people come on here to act out a particular fantasy and they're looking for the right role? Who knows - you might be the perfect fit in someone elses story..."

Or you might not make the cut..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs

Btw, what do you call that useless piece of skin on the end of a man's penis?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one.

Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean?? "

Magic wand held under the tip of the cock creates magic. Sexy did it to a guy at a party and I could hear him yelling in a good way from another room.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs


"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one.

Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean??

Magic wand held under the tip of the cock creates magic. Sexy did it to a guy at a party and I could hear him yelling in a good way from another room. "

lol...well, I'll have to try and find someone to try that trick on me!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs


"Btw, what do you call that useless piece of skin on the end of a man's penis?"

....its called a man!

Boom boom

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one.

Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean??

Magic wand held under the tip of the cock creates magic. Sexy did it to a guy at a party and I could hear him yelling in a good way from another room.

lol...well, I'll have to try and find someone to try that trick on me!! "

Done with competence it's very very good.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have to say I'm not fond of cut cocks... I would choose a uncut over a cut when meeting.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut.

Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits.

All my boys are circumcised too."

Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way.

Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really?

A

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

my cock uncut pic up

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago

in the suffolk countryside


"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut.

Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits.

All my boys are circumcised too.

Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way.

Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really?

A"

its a myth that its cleaner..and there are no other proven health benefits..its a justification excuse...shame parents dont think their boys are perfect when they come out of the womb and have to start cutting bits off of them...my opinion.

no difference op.. a clean one is great

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Kat does not like "Tube cocks" or those where the foreskin is too tight to allow the cock head through. It's down to look and feel in the mouth. Each to their own; but cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

I honestly don't care if people have a preference for male genital mutilation or not.

Seems a bit silly to me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't agree with that it has nothing to do with being cut or not it's about your sexually health as to wether you contract an sti. Mine is uncut and kept clean lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"I honestly don't care if people have a preference for male genital mutilation or not.

Seems a bit silly to me. "

Yep!

I'm always curious how many circumcised guys (that didn't have it done for medical reasons) made the choice themselves?

Gotta love parents eh!

A

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut.

Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits.

All my boys are circumcised too.

Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way.

Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really?

A

its a myth that its cleaner..and there are no other proven health benefits..its a justification excuse...shame parents dont think their boys are perfect when they come out of the womb and have to start cutting bits off of them...my opinion.

no difference op.. a clean one is great "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI. "

How on Earth have you worked that out?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ok guys and gals.

Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits.

1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision.

2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough.

3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%.

So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oconut2Woman
over a year ago

Nether regions of the back of beyond


"

The husband in question mentioned that she liked the skin of an uncut cock..."

Ewwww lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out? "

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *edroseCouple
over a year ago

wigan

Either for me but I do like them cut

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples. "

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *orthyorkypairCouple
over a year ago

North Yorkshire


"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel.

Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?"

we are not bothered either way but accept that people have the right to say yes or no to anything on here

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff

Ah yes, the myths of cut vs uncut.

It's really annoying that I can no longer find a really interesting blog that went through the history of cutting. I didn't know that a lot of it was down to removing a large area of skin to dull down the sensitivity so, in theory, guys concentrated on God more and also people's lack of understanding of what the foreskin is and how it develops.

Being cut doesn't make you cleaner (being someone who washes makes you cleaner). It also doesn't stop you from catching STIs.

There are ways of stretching a tight foreskin but it still seems to be more popular to just cut it off. Shame as it's not just a small piece of skin, it's actually quite a large sensitive part of the penis.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff

It's a long read, but interesting

http://madsciencewriter.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-foreskin-why-is-it-such-secret-in.html?m=1

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago

in the suffolk countryside


"Ok guys and gals.

Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits.

1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision.

2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough.

3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%.

So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits"

if you dont believe that the pharmaceuticals dont run and make money by keeping people sick via the NHS..then i feel very sorry for you.. i guess you are one of these people that agree in sewing up little girls to stop them losing their virginity too early, that vaccinations dont cause autism and that you still give to the mighty charity of cancer research when the cure is already present and known but 'illegal'. and no one would get breast cancer if we removed them at birth..maybe you'd support this practice as a preventative also..don't answer that..its a rhetoric question.

don't believe everything you have been told is true..do your own research, preferably not by google and mass media publications. however, mutilating people is not my thing..and cutting bits off of little boys isn't going to be, one of the things im going to give permission for, this lifetime.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ramblings, pure ramblings

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago

in the suffolk countryside


"Ramblings, pure ramblings"

mutterings, pure mutterings

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok guys and gals.

Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits.

1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision.

2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough.

3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%.

So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits"

Vastly reduced??? And whats the incidence rate before and after? Three parts of fuck all before, slightly less after.

Boys get infections from not washing? Then parent them properly!

Many little boys get horrifically mutilated and scarred from circumcision, even when performed by a doctor.

The WHO might promote it. In the 3rd world where access to clean water for bathing is scarce!

A drop off in HIV pick-up rates of 30% is pretty much useless, as it still won't stop the circumcised men from spreading it to others. And it just gives the uneducated more ammo to say they don't have to use condoms.

Oh yes, that 30% figure is highly suspect as there isn't a reliable control group.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ramblings, pure ramblings"

Would you cut off your daughters labia just to make it easier for her to keep herself "clean"?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?"

I've never had that be the reason I was shut down anyway.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ramblings, pure ramblings

Would you cut off your daughters labia just to make it easier for her to keep herself "clean"?"

An unwarranted extrapolation. Im told that the guillotine cures 100% of sore throats

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so.

Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so.

Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong. "
What they say!!! FGM has no medical basis and is an attempt to prolong witchcraft of sorts and those who subject children to this archaic practice should serve 25 years in prison.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok guys and gals.

Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits.

1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision.

2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough.

3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%.

So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits

Vastly reduced??? And whats the incidence rate before and after? Three parts of fuck all before, slightly less after.

Boys get infections from not washing? Then parent them properly!

Many little boys get horrifically mutilated and scarred from circumcision, even when performed by a doctor.

The WHO might promote it. In the 3rd world where access to clean water for bathing is scarce!

A drop off in HIV pick-up rates of 30% is pretty much useless, as it still won't stop the circumcised men from spreading it to others. And it just gives the uneducated more ammo to say they don't have to use condoms.

Oh yes, that 30% figure is highly suspect as there isn't a reliable control group."

Then give WHO a call and ask them to stop promoting male circumcision as you dont like the idea of a reduction in HIV transmission. Rightly or wrongly, it helps. Yes there are better ways but that isnt the reality and the reality is real deaths of real people. It is so easy to pontificate over the rights and wrongs of the third world whilst sitting in a developed first world sofa.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites."

The WHO advice is based on Africa. The study most supporters of circumcision quote was performed by U.S. Scientists in Uganda.

The NHS actually isn't supportive of this study.

To quote their own website:

"This study has important implications for the control of sexually transmitted infections in Africa, but researchers and commentators seem to disagree about the implications closer to home and in other population groups not tested in the study.

The differences between the US and UK interpretations of this study may be more cultural than scientific, and circumcision has historically been much more common in the US. More research in areas with a lower prevalence of HIV will be needed in order to test the relevance of this study outside of Uganda."

Not quite as positive as maybe you implied?

A

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ramblings, pure ramblings

Would you cut off your daughters labia just to make it easier for her to keep herself "clean"?

An unwarranted extrapolation. Im told that the guillotine cures 100% of sore throats"

Hardly unwarranted. You talk of circumcision as being a preventative health measure against something that is highly unlikely anyway. So the point of my labiaplasty question is pertinent, inasmuch as your point is. Ie. It isn't

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *sexDanMan
over a year ago

Romford

that's a benefit of being uncut that I love

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so.

Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong. "

If it isn't for medical reasons, and its done to a child who cannot give personal consent, that's pretty much mutilation to me, whether that's circumcision, ear piercing, tattooing or neck rings.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok guys and gals.

Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits.

1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision.

2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough.

3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%.

So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits

Vastly reduced??? And whats the incidence rate before and after? Three parts of fuck all before, slightly less after.

Boys get infections from not washing? Then parent them properly!

Many little boys get horrifically mutilated and scarred from circumcision, even when performed by a doctor.

The WHO might promote it. In the 3rd world where access to clean water for bathing is scarce!

A drop off in HIV pick-up rates of 30% is pretty much useless, as it still won't stop the circumcised men from spreading it to others. And it just gives the uneducated more ammo to say they don't have to use condoms.

Oh yes, that 30% figure is highly suspect as there isn't a reliable control group.

Then give WHO a call and ask them to stop promoting male circumcision as you dont like the idea of a reduction in HIV transmission. Rightly or wrongly, it helps. Yes there are better ways but that isnt the reality and the reality is real deaths of real people. It is so easy to pontificate over the rights and wrongs of the third world whilst sitting in a developed first world sofa."

You said it! There are better ways. So why promote something which gives a false sense of security?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes i said it. There are better ways but i am a pragmatist. To take your comments and twist them a little is to follow the Catholic church teachings and say that the best way of avoiding STIs and unwanted pregnancy / murder of an unborn child is abstinence.

With regards to NHS and circumcision i specifically referred the NHS to penile cancer and not HIV. The WHO i linked with HIV. I would not expect the NHS in the first world to usefully comment on the third world situation

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes i said it. There are better ways but i am a pragmatist. To take your comments and twist them a little is to follow the Catholic church teachings and say that the best way of avoiding STIs and unwanted pregnancy / murder of an unborn child is abstinence.

With regards to NHS and circumcision i specifically referred the NHS to penile cancer and not HIV. The WHO i linked with HIV. I would not expect the NHS in the first world to usefully comment on the third world situation"

The best (realisticaly) way of avoiding HIV sti's and pregnancy in the 3rd world is condoms. NOT allowing men to think they are immune to HIV because they are circumcised, is what should happen but it doesnt as they will find any excuse not to wear one. Even to the point if targeting virgins as they think this will also protect them!

Penile cancer rates do NOT warrant circumcision. Why dont we take out everones appendix whilst were at it, "just in case"?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff

So removing a piece of skin can lower the risk of HIV?

Actually I can see why. Like with the religious reason for removing it, you are removing a very sensitive area of the penis and so dulling the feeling in that area, with the idea that this means a guy is less likely to be thinking about sex and so less likely to be having as much sex, lowering the chance of catching HIV

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Should happen but doesnt happen. Theory or practice. Death or possible life for some. Let the third world decide, not the first world holier than thou pontification

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I didn't know we had so many doctors on fab! Can someone help me with my allergies? Or does Google only hand out degrees for circumcision and fgm?

-Courtney

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *lashheartMan
over a year ago

shrewsbury

I had to have mine cut for medical reasons (very tight foreskin)

It was certainly easier to clean after but if the skins normal it shouldn't be a problem.

Sex wise I think about sex just as much, masturbate just as much and do last a little longer but that might be my age

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Should happen but doesnt happen. Theory or practice. Death or possible life for some. Let the third world decide, not the first world holier than thou pontification"

So you suggest we ship out all the red cross, WHO and medicine frontiers, so we don't pontificate ? Leave them uneducated and dieing?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *orbi24Man
over a year ago

London


"I had to have mine cut for medical reasons (very tight foreskin)

It was certainly easier to clean after but if the skins normal it shouldn't be a problem.

Sex wise I think about sex just as much, masturbate just as much and do last a little longer but that might be my age "

No mate. Same here. I am cut since I was a baby. And I do last longer. Its not that sensitive.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I had to have mine cut for medical reasons (very tight foreskin)

It was certainly easier to clean after but if the skins normal it shouldn't be a problem.

Sex wise I think about sex just as much, masturbate just as much and do last a little longer but that might be my age

No mate. Same here. I am cut since I was a baby. And I do last longer. Its not that sensitive."

How long did you last when you were a baby then?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites."

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin."

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I didn't know we had so many doctors on fab! Can someone help me with my allergies? Or does Google only hand out degrees for circumcision and fgm?

-Courtney"

There are experts on everything on Fab. I've never seen any of their credentials though

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eforfuncplCouple
over a year ago

Morecambe

Hubby had to be cut for medical reasons and we both love it now xxx

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I didn't know we had so many doctors on fab! Can someone help me with my allergies? Or does Google only hand out degrees for circumcision and fgm?

-Courtney"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. "

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things."

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. "

Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. "

I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant."

I think it'd be ignorant to dismiss the primary link between all cases in the study.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. "

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ammerandthongsCouple
over a year ago

Limerick

Doesn't make a difference to me as long as I like the guy the cock is attached to

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were."

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *lorious hole bs16Man
over a year ago

Bristol

I have a huge preference for uncut

....however I know others who prefer cut..

Yes I have specifically declined cut cocks, but have also rejected huge cocks.

j

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV. "

I'm not saying they're not exposed.

I'm just saying nothing can be "proved" until the research is based purely on sexual contact with a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised non-HIV+ men.

Some different tribes have completely different lifestyles and attitudes altogether and a lot of tribes "stick to their own" so to speak, so there is no guarantee that there is less exposure in one tribe than there is in another.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. "

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV.

I'm not saying they're not exposed.

I'm just saying nothing can be "proved" until the research is based purely on sexual contact with a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised non-HIV+ men.

Some different tribes have completely different lifestyles and attitudes altogether and a lot of tribes "stick to their own" so to speak, so there is no guarantee that there is less exposure in one tribe than there is in another."

Yes, perhaps, however the overlaying link between all is whether or not they were circumcised. It has been shown that those circumcised are up to 50% less likely to contract HIV, so it seems wise to advocate it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? "

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant.

I think it'd be ignorant to dismiss the primary link between all cases in the study. "

I'm not sure that circumcision actually is the primary link. The variables are too great.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.

There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.

The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV.

I'm not saying they're not exposed.

I'm just saying nothing can be "proved" until the research is based purely on sexual contact with a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised non-HIV+ men.

Some different tribes have completely different lifestyles and attitudes altogether and a lot of tribes "stick to their own" so to speak, so there is no guarantee that there is less exposure in one tribe than there is in another.

Yes, perhaps, however the overlaying link between all is whether or not they were circumcised. It has been shown that those circumcised are up to 50% less likely to contract HIV, so it seems wise to advocate it. "

Hmm, I think I'll wait for defining evidence.

To me it's a bit like the vaxers vs anti-vaxers argument at the moment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion "

So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.

How on Earth have you worked that out?

Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.

Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.

I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.

From the NHS website:

"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".

Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.

Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.

I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.

There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.

There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.

I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant.

I think it'd be ignorant to dismiss the primary link between all cases in the study.

I'm not sure that circumcision actually is the primary link. The variables are too great."

If you read any of the studies, you'll see it's the clear dominant factor.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *opsy RogersWoman
over a year ago

London


"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut.

Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits.

All my boys are circumcised too."

Stop perpetuating myths. If you think that a circumcised penis is cleaner, you're utterly wrong.

The reason you are desensitised is because you don't have a foreskin to protect your glans and without it, you don't have thousands of nerve endings.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion

So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?"

It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion

So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?

It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells. "

I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.

You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer"

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion

So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?

It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.

I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.

You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it."

If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not.

You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? "

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel.

Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?"

Just revisited the original post. Oops. Sorry for hijacking it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer"

Tend????

I'm one of four boys, none of us ever had infections. But then, we kept clean.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Both go in my mouth pretty well. I don't mind either. One of each would be nice

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion

So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?

It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.

I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.

You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it.

If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not.

You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at. "

The body being compromised by bacteria? Thats just nonsense, as we stand more chance of serious bacterial infection from other means.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion

So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?

It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.

I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.

You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it.

If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not.

You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at.

The body being compromised by bacteria? Thats just nonsense, as we stand more chance of serious bacterial infection from other means. "

No, it's not nonsense. For example, look at immuno compromised people. They have more chance of contracting an infection due to their cells already fighting bacteria - they do not the capacity to cope. This is similar.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

Tend????

I'm one of four boys, none of us ever had infections. But then, we kept clean."

Agreed. It would be good if all boys were clean there but they arent. Thats life.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect"

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...

I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.

But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were.

Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors.

So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin?

No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion

So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?

It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.

I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.

You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it.

If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not.

You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at.

The body being compromised by bacteria? Thats just nonsense, as we stand more chance of serious bacterial infection from other means.

No, it's not nonsense. For example, look at immuno compromised people. They have more chance of contracting an infection due to their cells already fighting bacteria - they do not the capacity to cope. This is similar. "

But someone with a smelly bell end isn't seriously compromised, unless they already have a problem fighting off normal bacterial infections. Someone with aids for example.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff

[Removed by poster at 15/07/15 12:40:49]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate "

I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff

"Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff

[Removed by poster at 15/07/15 12:44:33]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don't lecture on how dreadful it is to remove the body parts you were born with unless you are squeaky clean.

I have broad enough shoulders to take the insults to my religion and, as i interpret it, to my family but dont expect me not to respond

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"

"Or teach you to use a condom"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom""

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


"Don't lecture on how dreadful it is to remove the body parts you were born with unless you are squeaky clean.

I have broad enough shoulders to take the insults to my religion and, as i interpret it, to my family but dont expect me not to respond"

The difference being that what I have had removed was done while I was an adult with a choice, not a great one but still a choice. I wasn't a screaming baby or young child with no choice but to go through with what was being forced on me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children. "

If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.

If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them."

Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ringiton89Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

No opinion on this other than it always makes me feel good when I'm favoured over the other guy in a mmf situ if he's cut. Women seem to prefer uncut - especially for oral

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children. "

I have researched into the foreskin as it is something I would love to have but unfortunately it is not possible.

Ok so they aren't available everywhere but they are in other countries where people still insist on circumcising their children.

I don't think having the opinion to not do it and leave it up to the child when they are old enough to choose what to do to their own body is silly and childish.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.

I have researched into the foreskin as it is something I would love to have but unfortunately it is not possible.

Ok so they aren't available everywhere but they are in other countries where people still insist on circumcising their children.

I don't think having the opinion to not do it and leave it up to the child when they are old enough to choose what to do to their own body is silly and childish."

No but how you came to that opinion is silly and childish. You've ignored several studies just because of personal belief which is as bad as condemning doing it for religious beliefs (they're both unfounded).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate

I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them. "

Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.

If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.

Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds? "

Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate

I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.

Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective."

I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.

If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.

Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds?

Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well?"

To say it's not a suitable measure to take in places where HIV is rife just because the west isn't as affected is wrong. Appendicitis can be treated and cured anyway, HIV can be terminal in areas where medication is not widely available so I'm not sure that's comparable.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate

I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.

Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.

I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure. "

But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only.

If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection.

Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate

I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.

Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.

I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure.

But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only.

If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection.

Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms."

It's been said that 95% of HIV infections come from sexual acts.

Yes, condoms would be suitable in an idealistic world, as well as educating those at risk, however it hasn't been successful so far.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate

I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.

Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.

I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure.

But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only.

If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection.

Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms.

It's been said that 95% of HIV infections come from sexual acts.

Yes, condoms would be suitable in an idealistic world, as well as educating those at risk, however it hasn't been successful so far. "

But then could the same people who won't use condoms be trusted to advocate something if it CAN be proved?

Me thinks it's fighting a losing battle either way but I still wouldn't advocate circumcision to reduce the risk of contracting HIV through sexual contact here unless there was definitive proof that it does, as opposed to people who already have the infection with no proof as to how they caught it.

It could just as easily have been through saliva/blood transmitions or passed on by the Mother.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with.

Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate

I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.

Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.

I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure.

But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only.

If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection.

Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms.

It's been said that 95% of HIV infections come from sexual acts.

Yes, condoms would be suitable in an idealistic world, as well as educating those at risk, however it hasn't been successful so far.

But then could the same people who won't use condoms be trusted to advocate something if it CAN be proved?

Me thinks it's fighting a losing battle either way but I still wouldn't advocate circumcision to reduce the risk of contracting HIV through sexual contact here unless there was definitive proof that it does, as opposed to people who already have the infection with no proof as to how they caught it.

It could just as easily have been through saliva/blood transmitions or passed on by the Mother."

To be clear, I meant the WHO advocating circumcision.

I'm not sure as it's definitely a big statement for anyone to make, but for me the evidence is adequate. I think it'll prevent future cases presenting.

It won't prevent in those situations however contracting through sexual means is still the highest risk.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.

If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.

Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds?

Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well?

To say it's not a suitable measure to take in places where HIV is rife just because the west isn't as affected is wrong. Appendicitis can be treated and cured anyway, HIV can be terminal in areas where medication is not widely available so I'm not sure that's comparable. "

I'm talking ABOUT the west!

Yes appedecitis can be cured without surgery (sometimes), and a dirty penis can be made clean without recourse to surgery.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.

If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.

Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds?

Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well?

To say it's not a suitable measure to take in places where HIV is rife just because the west isn't as affected is wrong. Appendicitis can be treated and cured anyway, HIV can be terminal in areas where medication is not widely available so I'm not sure that's comparable.

I'm talking ABOUT the west!

Yes appedecitis can be cured without surgery (sometimes), and a dirty penis can be made clean without recourse to surgery."

Ah right, I'm talking about areas in Africa. We in the West have the luxury of education and improved medical care, and they don't. It could be a simple solution to helping reduce transmission rates.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *opsy RogersWoman
over a year ago

London


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect"

There are absolutely NO health benefits to circumcision. If you want to mutilate your children in that belief, go ahead but please, educate yourself and stop spouting the crap that pro-circumcision folk use to justify their decisions.

An uncut penis needs no special treatment at all until it NATURALLY retracts which occurs anywhere between ages 5-25. Then and only then, does attention to cleaning under the foreskin need to happen.

Forced retraction causes a huge amount of pain and scar tissue which can then result in adhesions and problems into adulthood.

If you come from a religion that circumcises all your male children, you will have little idea about a penis in its natural state.

I won't be long, I'm just going to cut off the labia of one of the girls in my family, she doesn't need it so off they come!

If any of you are brave enough, YouTube circumcision.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm sure I read circumsion restricts growth too as there is less skin so any growth there is will hurt as the skin that was there that was meant to give way isn't there

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *opsy RogersWoman
over a year ago

London

I really hope this link works.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body...

I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body...

I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't... "

We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them.

Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies.

If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice.

A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body...

I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't...

We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them.

Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies.

If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice.

A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored."

Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ?

If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so.

Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ransGuyTV/TS
over a year ago

Cardiff


"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body...

I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't...

We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them.

Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies.

If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice.

A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored.

Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ?

If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think...

"

Not every circumcision is performed in a sterile hospital room with anesthetic or even by a Dr.

I am thankful that I can only go by what I have read.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I hear uncut cocks have a more sensitive head..

I'm uncut too and have never had any problems. Plus the thought of having your cock cut by a blade (heavens above)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icjMan
over a year ago

Bethnal Green


"...although I like to circle the tip of my tongue under the foreskin mmm"

or another knob under it lol (hmmmmmm..)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Welcome to fab forums.... where things escalate more rapidly than STIs spread (unless it's circumcised)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm uncut and sometimes ripping your skin back can be a right bitch Haha!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nclepeterMan
over a year ago

Bristol

I have a large amount of foreskin , i found beneficial when I'm having sex with a dry lady as I can tuck my foreskin in her pussy , then my cock slides straight in ,in fact I think I'm fucking my own for skin , the lady really enjoys it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *opsy RogersWoman
over a year ago

London


"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body...

I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't...

We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them.

Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies.

If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice.

A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored.

Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ?

If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think...

"

Really, I encourage you to Google 'circumcision board' and YouTube circumcision.

In the USA, it is done in hospitals, by doctors, on babies with NO anaesthetic. The babies start by screaming in sheer tortuous agony and then go deathly silent when they go into shock to protect themselves.

You would have had it done either under a GA or local and given analgesia and aftercare. Unlike the babies who have their open wound in a nappy covered in urine and excrement.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body...

I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't...

We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them.

Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies.

If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice.

A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored.

Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ?

If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think...

Really, I encourage you to Google 'circumcision board' and YouTube circumcision.

In the USA, it is done in hospitals, by doctors, on babies with NO anaesthetic. The babies start by screaming in sheer tortuous agony and then go deathly silent when they go into shock to protect themselves.

You would have had it done either under a GA or local and given analgesia and aftercare. Unlike the babies who have their open wound in a nappy covered in urine and excrement."

Well in that case, that is totally wrong and I guess we should do the same to the parent who accept to have their children done in such condition...

Funny that in such "so called" advance country as USA (as they call it) , they still practice such operation without GA or local... and after the same people dare criticised people in Africa who do the same...without the mean

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *haunMan
over a year ago

Halton

I am cut (done as a small child for medical reasons)

Don't remember it.

.

Difficult for me to comment on what I think may be better or not?

As I have never known anything different.

From my first hands on experiences masturbating, to sex, receiving blowjobs, to anything else 'cock' related.

Only ever been cut, so for me it is always normal and natural.

.

Never experienced any problems or encountered any 'difficulties' when playing and to be honest..

Never brought up into conversation much.

I can't say I have played specifically because I am cut, nor can I say I have been turned down because I am cut.

.

Cleanliness should not be an issue for either cut/uncut.

But I imagine that practically it is slightly easier to keep clean uncut.

.

Maybe ladies (or gents) do have a preference?

But like anything in life (especially in the swinging world)

People make choices to as what they want or don't want.

Just one of the many considerations that takes place.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/07/15 21:50:15]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icole.TV/TS
over a year ago

Tottenham Court Road

I prefer uncut as I like the way I make it grow out of the foreskin. Also like the dirty aspect of it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House

I'm not that bothered if it's cut or not but I prefer the look of a cut one. Makes no difference when in my mouth or inside me though

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cut cocks are a ball ache to wank without having extra lube.

Wouldn't stop me meeting someone though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm uncut and dribble pre cum from the off

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm not keen in ti much foreskin or tight foreskin that does not pull back

other than that I'm east either way

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And pull back easyyyyyyy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I met a guy once who had a really tight foreskin it just didn't pull back at all, even when he was erect it was tightly closed over the end of his cock

I know this sounds weird but I couldn't suck it I just kept thinking if it's that tight it don't pull back at all how is he cleaning behind it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Neil from the Inbetweeners had a cut cock, it was no problemo.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not a major issue can make hand fun a bit more awkward though got skip licking your fingers or putting lube on

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I met a guy once who had a really tight foreskin it just didn't pull back at all, even when he was erect it was tightly closed over the end of his cock

I know this sounds weird but I couldn't suck it I just kept thinking if it's that tight it don't pull back at all how is he cleaning behind it "

Normally it would be able to pull back when soft for cleaning.

If not he really should see a doctor

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body...

I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't...

We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them.

Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies.

If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice.

A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored.

Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ?

If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think...

Really, I encourage you to Google 'circumcision board' and YouTube circumcision.

In the USA, it is done in hospitals, by doctors, on babies with NO anaesthetic. The babies start by screaming in sheer tortuous agony and then go deathly silent when they go into shock to protect themselves.

You would have had it done either under a GA or local and given analgesia and aftercare. Unlike the babies who have their open wound in a nappy covered in urine and excrement.

Well in that case, that is totally wrong and I guess we should do the same to the parent who accept to have their children done in such condition...

Funny that in such "so called" advance country as USA (as they call it) , they still practice such operation without GA or local... and after the same people dare criticised people in Africa who do the same...without the mean "

You should see the little baby sized board with arm and leg restraints that's used....

GA is way to risky to use in on babies though for something non life threatening

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Why did you have me circumcised?"

"Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself."

"Or teach you to use a condom"

Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa

"

Yes they are, there are even any organisations giving them away for free over there.

The issue has never been lack of supply but that they've all had Catholic missionaries telling them they don't work and they'll go to hell if they use them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so.

Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong.

If it isn't for medical reasons, and its done to a child who cannot give personal consent, that's pretty much mutilation to me, whether that's circumcision, ear piercing, tattooing or neck rings."

I was circumcised as a child because of a tight foreskin. I am very pleased that was done. I now have total control over my cock and it has a nice shape.

Recently we had a met with a guy who could not withdraw his foreskin. It was painful for him and it spoilt his enjoyment of sex; let alone any thoughts of what was hidden under his cover.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut.

Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits.

All my boys are circumcised too.

Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way.

Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really?

A

its a myth that its cleaner..and there are no other proven health benefits..its a justification excuse...shame parents dont think their boys are perfect when they come out of the womb and have to start cutting bits off of them...my opinion.

no difference op.. a clean one is great "
mine was cut not out of choice the skin split when I was having sex and it split pretty bad blood everywhere when it healed the scar made it go so tight id of struggled to squeeze a pea through it so had to have it removed not through choice

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Cut cocks are a ball ache to wank without having extra lube.

Wouldn't stop me meeting someone though."
there is a phobia that it is going to hurt him if you pull too hard its a myth you can tug on mine like a bastard and it does not hurt

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *osieWoman
over a year ago

Wembley


"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel.

Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?"

Under a condom, I wouldn't know if it was cut, chopped or minced

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so.

Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong.

If it isn't for medical reasons, and its done to a child who cannot give personal consent, that's pretty much mutilation to me, whether that's circumcision, ear piercing, tattooing or neck rings.

I was circumcised as a child because of a tight foreskin. I am very pleased that was done. I now have total control over my cock and it has a nice shape.

Recently we had a met with a guy who could not withdraw his foreskin. It was painful for him and it spoilt his enjoyment of sex; let alone any thoughts of what was hidden under his cover. "

Then he needs to see a GP urgently.

Did you suggest that to him? I'd of thought any guy with common sense would know when something was wrong.

A

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

There are absolutely NO health benefits to circumcision. If you want to mutilate your children in that belief, go ahead but please, educate yourself and stop spouting the crap that pro-circumcision folk use to justify their decisions.

An uncut penis needs no special treatment at all until it NATURALLY retracts which occurs anywhere between ages 5-25. Then and only then, does attention to cleaning under the foreskin need to happen.

Forced retraction causes a huge amount of pain and scar tissue which can then result in adhesions and problems into adulthood.

If you come from a religion that circumcises all your male children, you will have little idea about a penis in its natural state.

I won't be long, I'm just going to cut off the labia of one of the girls in my family, she doesn't need it so off they come!

If any of you are brave enough, YouTube circumcision."

No health benefits?

I have made references to circumcision and penile cancer (see NHS web site) and HIV transmission (see WHO web site). I assume that the National Health Service and the World Health Organisation know a little about the subject, probably a little bit more than either of us. So I wouldn't be quite so adamant that there are no health benefits.

As for the operation itself. I'm told that I was circumcised in an NHS hospital and my boys certainly were. I can't speak for me, I was too young, but none of my sons were screaming in agony.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer

So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents?

No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect

There are absolutely NO health benefits to circumcision. If you want to mutilate your children in that belief, go ahead but please, educate yourself and stop spouting the crap that pro-circumcision folk use to justify their decisions.

An uncut penis needs no special treatment at all until it NATURALLY retracts which occurs anywhere between ages 5-25. Then and only then, does attention to cleaning under the foreskin need to happen.

Forced retraction causes a huge amount of pain and scar tissue which can then result in adhesions and problems into adulthood.

If you come from a religion that circumcises all your male children, you will have little idea about a penis in its natural state.

I won't be long, I'm just going to cut off the labia of one of the girls in my family, she doesn't need it so off they come!

If any of you are brave enough, YouTube circumcision.

No health benefits?

I have made references to circumcision and penile cancer (see NHS web site) and HIV transmission (see WHO web site). I assume that the National Health Service and the World Health Organisation know a little about the subject, probably a little bit more than either of us. So I wouldn't be quite so adamant that there are no health benefits.

As for the operation itself. I'm told that I was circumcised in an NHS hospital and my boys certainly were. I can't speak for me, I was too young, but none of my sons were screaming in agony."

Did you choose to have it done for the 'health benefits'?

Or for other reasons?

Sorry - I'll rephrase that. Did the person making the choice do it for 'health benefits' or for other reasons? As I'm guessing g at the age it was done you wouldn't have had any choice?

A

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olarfox OP   Man
over a year ago

North Cambs

Flipping heck, I've not been on here since shortly after starting this thread and had no idea it had got so 'lively'...nor did I realize that it had diverged so radically from the original question I raised....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Flipping heck, I've not been on here since shortly after starting this thread and had no idea it had got so 'lively'...nor did I realize that it had diverged so radically from the original question I raised.... "

Aw come on - you know the most innocuous questions often turn into cat-fights!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I can't see how any parent would do it to their child except for medical reasons these days

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ot Naked ChefMan
over a year ago

Bolton

I was circumcised due to medical reasons as a child, I personally couldn't make the decision to have both my boys done unless it was due to a medical problem.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Flipping heck, I've not been on here since shortly after starting this thread and had no idea it had got so 'lively'...nor did I realize that it had diverged so radically from the original question I raised.... "

Sorry. I did apologise about 50 posts back

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Did you choose to have it done for the 'health benefits'?

Or for other reasons?

Sorry - I'll rephrase that. Did the person making the choice do it for 'health benefits' or for other reasons? As I'm guessing g at the age it was done you wouldn't have had any choice?

A"

I and my sons were circumcised for religious reasons. The health benefits, if you believe the NHS, WHO and others, are a welcome side effect.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"

Did you choose to have it done for the 'health benefits'?

Or for other reasons?

Sorry - I'll rephrase that. Did the person making the choice do it for 'health benefits' or for other reasons? As I'm guessing g at the age it was done you wouldn't have had any choice?

A

I and my sons were circumcised for religious reasons. The health benefits, if you believe the NHS, WHO and others, are a welcome side effect."

But who made the choice? I'm guessing not the person being circumcised?

Basing decisions on purely religious reasons removes free will from the person affected.

A similar situation with those religions that deter condom use. Which of course does far more to help the spread of STI's.

Making a judgement because an archaic piece of writing says so seems a little....what's the word? Archaic?

A

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok guys and gals.

Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits.

1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision.

2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough.

3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%.

So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits

if you dont believe that the pharmaceuticals dont run and make money by keeping people sick via the NHS..then i feel very sorry for you.. i guess you are one of these people that agree in sewing up little girls to stop them losing their virginity too early, that vaccinations dont cause autism and that you still give to the mighty charity of cancer research when the cure is already present and known but 'illegal'. and no one would get breast cancer if we removed them at birth..maybe you'd support this practice as a preventative also..don't answer that..its a rhetoric question.

don't believe everything you have been told is true..do your own research, preferably not by google and mass media publications. however, mutilating people is not my thing..and cutting bits off of little boys isn't going to be, one of the things im going to give permission for, this lifetime."

Shhhs.. dont let them know you're on to them

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top