Share your advice for this reader in the comments section below…
Dear Em & Lo,
My parents did not believe in circumcision so they left me natural, and I don’t have any problems with the way I am and I have not had any problems with ladies. But I would like to know what women really think about foreskin or no skin? I ask this because there seems to be a disconnect between what some people say publicly and what they believe privately. Is there a difference between the ethical and the erotic for women? It’s easy to imagine a woman not wanting to hurt a baby, but might that same woman find circumcised penises more of a turn on? In this PC culture, it can be hard to acertain people’s true opinions. What are the majority of women’s ethical and sexual preferences when it comes to a circumcised or uncircumcised penis — and, more to the point, are those two things usually the same?
— Uncut Collegian
What should Uncut Collegian do? Share your suggestions in the comments section below.
There are many web sites, like circinfo.net, that chooses the medical studies it wants and conveniently ignores studies with the opposite conclusions. The dirty little truth is that real unbiased medical reporting is an on going series of reports, from many sources, each with concussions conflicting with previous reports. The more sure and unequivocal the medical source is the bigger the bias.
Here, in America, circumcision is a multi-bullion dollar industry and no one can make a cent opposing circumcision – hence there are far more pro-circ sites than anti.
Another example of the bias selectiveness; circinfo.net wants us to believe that Christianity is pro-circ. To the contrary, the New Testament has a moratorium on circumcision. “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Galatians 5:2 King James
As long the man himself are comfortabel with his cock no matter what, does this really matter?
Lilo, could you rationally and logically explain just HOW missing the majority of penile nerves could make sex “MORE” pleasurable? The only thing that comes to mind is psychological (placebo effect)–and that is hardly logical or rational.
DoctorD seems to be asleep at the wheel.
Apparently he is unable to access the stats from the real world.
How is it that the rates of all these problems are LOWER in many intact countries than in circumcising countries?
Why is this “preference” for mutilated penises only in Muslim countries, Jewish people, and in America? Ignorance and gullibility?
i have been with cut & uncut men before. i guess what’s important here is to be clean and hygiene. i had no problem doing blowjob when the head is clean/cut unlike the uncut/unclean version which will leave me with sorethroat & probably mouth ulcer.
my hubby just had his penis circed & at the age of 56 he found more pleasurable than before.
Several of my female friends and I agree. Sex with men who are uncircumcised is better than with the “cut” ones for several reasons. There is more skin on the end of the penis and it is softer, providing a more gentle stimulation inside. Also, I believe that the man lasts longer and can come back faster than uncut. Once it’s out, it looks the same, anyway. Of course, this has nothing to do with health risks of any kind.
Cut kinda wigs me out personally. I couldn’t imagine doing it to anyone sans their consent.
I don’t really plan on having children so it’s not something I have to seriously think about though.
The risk factor for these cancers is not the presence of a foreskin but the presence of HPV infection.. If circumcision were the only way to prevent this infection then you might have a point, but there is now a vaccine against the strains which are most likely to induce the changes in infected cells that result in cancer. In the UK at least this is now being offered to all girls at ~13-15 years of age as an active way to reduce cervical cancer, which should go a long way to reduce the infection rates in males as well, I presume concerned parents could also get boys vaccinated too. A quick google of stats revealed that the rates of these cancers are similar both side of the atlantic and given in the UK circumcision only occurs in certain ethnic groups and when a medical reason arises that seems to indicate that other factors are definitely at play here too..
To Bettyboo et al . . . .
Stats. Endometrial cancer: 39,300 cases p.a.
Uterine cancer: 13,333 ” ”
Cervical cancer: 13,000 ” ”
A total of 65,633 cases per year – the vast majority are women who were intimate with uncircumcised men. Additionally, there are over 3,000 cases of penile cancer – ALL of whom are uncircumcised.
The above figures do not take into consideration the extremely high prevalence of STD among uncircumcised men and their partners.
To say that good hygiene as a solution to the problem is equivalent to quoting Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” – it is just not going to happen. Period.
We may well debate the pros and cons of circumcision – but to the tragic victims mentioned above, there is no dispute.
never been a smoker, never will be.. smoking is in a different category as it has a definite proved causation, one of the very few carcinogens where this has been definitively shown. The pirates comment was just a humorous way to show correlation and causation are not the same thing.. my comments were lead from what I perceived as scaremongering, the idea that by not carrying out this procedure you open up all these huge risks where is reality most if not all of these risks can be negated by good hygiene, good sexual practises and a simple vaccination. In this context the risks of not being circumcised seem vanishingly small compared to risks we take and we take for our children simply by living in the modern world.
For the record I have nothing against the procedure as part of a rite of passage etc, I just don’t see evidence that any of the cited risks are enough to warrant putting a baby boy through a painful and permanently altering procedure.
I personally do not find uncut penis’s attractive. I have never been with a man who was uncut, and while I’m not sure that if I met a completely wonderful man who was uncut, that it would change my feelings for them–honestly, I’m so thankful that I have never had to face this situation. From a spiritual standpoint, I believe it it, and I followed it. I know that there are plenty of women who do not find uncut attractive in the least–and I would never want my sons to have fear or concern over it. Someone above used the word “mutilation”. I’m sorry, but having a surgical procedure done to your child where the body is cut is not different from any other surgery–to use the word mutilate only serves to dump a cup of drama to subject. The incisions heal fast generally, and most kids do not have issues as a result of circumcision…and they don’t remember it. There are tribles of people in this world who do it as a rite of passage when a boy becomes a man. And to Betty Booooo–I am a communications major and your rambling above seemed more of a effort to share your linguistic skills rather than participation in a candid and potentially emotional conversation. Unless the Pirates are uncircumcised–most of your commentary was utter fluff.
Dear Miss Bettyboo . . . .
Louis XVI and his unconsummated marriage notwithstanding – can you proffer a single scientific opinion to the effect that circumcision – or lack of it – has no bearing on uterine or penile cancer?
Your comment with regard to the relationship between global warming and pirates cannot but help me wonder whether you may not be a member of any Smokers’ Rights group. They also scorn statistics.
My suggestion: Speak with a sufferer of uterine or penile cancer – (as I have on multiple occasions) – and get their opinions. Speak to sufferers of lung, tongue or larynx carcinomas and tell them that tobacco use had nothing to do with their afflictions.
Tho http://www.circinfo.net is an entertainingread.. apparently Louis XVI not being circumcised lead to the french revolution!!
see bottom paragraph of this page
http://www.circinfo.net/what_caused_many_cultures_to_remove_it.html
Nothing to do with the vast socioeconomic differences between the decadent rich and the starving poor after all then, nope, all because Louis XVI couldn’t initially consumate his marriage with his child bride.. a site coming up with this drivel cannot be taken as a serious unbiased medium to report scientific facts..
For those who are interested the data about global warming vs. pirates can be found here
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
may cause offense to believers in intelligent design.. ;0)
whoops, that should have ended, ‘how 2 unrelated issues can be made to look linked or like 1 is causing the other.. :0)