Women do not like to pull down a man's pants to see a disgusting uncircumcised penis.In more civil writing,being uncircumcised really does not have the benefits that uncircumcised people claim.First of all, many but not all uncircumcised penises produce enough smegma to where hygiene becomes an issue.Women are very offended by this.Secondly,there is no increase in pleasure for the woman simply because there is a disgusting flap of skin.Most importantly it looks quite disgusting and women find that extremely unattractive.One may argue that the rates are falling,however in reality the rates of circumcision in the United States are a satisfying 56-66%(depending on the year).If you are wondering on why to get your son clipped don't listen to all of the foreskin propaganda because really it has more pros than cons.
No woman will refuse a man only for the fact that he has been circumcised.
There are clearly women who will refuse a man only for the fact that he is intact.
Circumcision improves options, possibilities, opportunities and the converse is true. The fact is that not circumcising a boy may result in him being rejected for this reason alone.
Now it is no use calling such women names, making judgments or complaining. A woman has the right to decide who she will allow to have sex with her - her own personal veto power. A cut penis will never alone be denied consideration for this factor alone.
They are cleaner - Always cleaner. A cut penis can have no smegma - no foreskin = no smegma.
Now it does not matter if an intact fellow lives in the shower - the fact remains that if you have a foreskin you can have smegma and if you do not have a foreskin you can NEVER have smegma.
I am a young college girl, my vaginal tube is tested by cut penis. Cut penis looks good in shape & size against uncut. It is clean, neat, smell-free and no risk of infections. Condom easily fitted on cut penis. Head of penis activated my G-spot, really very nice and silky penis head.
Circumcised penises, in my opinion, are much better. Over the years, I've found that uncircumcised penises tend to have a stronger smell and more greasy/sweaty feel to them. Despite best efforts to keep clean, any skin that is folded on top of other skin will tend to sweat and smell rather quickly - even after a good shower. So it is definitely a fact that circumcised penises are "easier" to keep clean, and I'm guessing are less prone to infections.
The uncircumcised penis has a foul smell which I cannot stand. Everyone's different & some may like the smell or be able to see past it. However, I cannot. Circumcised is much cleaner & pleasant. It's such a shame that so many people are opting to keep it natural these days rather than have it cut. It's slowly being faded out & soon I believe it won't be an option to have done which is a shame for those of us who don't like stinky penises!
Uncircumcised penises are just aesthetically unpleasant to the eye. They are dirty. You don't need science to tell you that a bigger surface area (uncircumcised penis) means more bacteria. It's logic. The people on the right probably have never had a girl tell them "I won't sleep with you because I don't want any bacterial infections", or just plain "Ewe".
I used to be neutral on this topic until I met a person who was anti circ. It amazed me how much they twisted their figures and would not listen to any reason whatsoever. You can't have a fair debate if the person you are debating against has wild figures.
The 2009 article about circ. Being at percentages in the 30-35% range is FALSE it appears to be a figure that was released without all data because lone behold TRUE figures came out in 2011 regarding 2010 figures and it showed circumcision is still the norm in the USA at 54% those figures only includes hospital circ. So any Jewish or practicing Muslims who do it more for religious reasons are not included in that 54% figure so I maybe as bold to raise that to the 58%-60% if you include circ. Not performed in a hospital.
The American Pediatrics has come out with a full report support circ. A stance they where neutral on prior. That says alot. It also appears to drive the anti circ protestors insane! However FACT is one of the most respected medical associations in the world says health benefits put weight any kind of risk.
I have been with uncircumcised men perfore and it was uncomfortable. I attempted to perform oral on two very clean Latino men I was dating that had not been circumcised. In all honesty, I couldn't get through either one. I don't care who much you scrub the area between the foreskin and the head of the penis is actually similar to the tissue in the anal region, so remember do you really want to touch your anal region on a hot new York summer day? I didn't think so.
It looks better and the stats have been relatively steady since 2004 hovering at 55% not including circ done by Jews or Muslims.
Other countries that routinely circ. Korea, all the middle east, philippines, many African countries are heavily enforcing it as a means of HIV prevention so it's heavily widespread in Manu areas there, malaysia and indonesia.
Do not let twisted facts from anti circ protestors fool you. They come in herds on the Internet or troll Many boards with their crazy theories
I don't know about you but I take the world of AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS over some crazy guy who wasn't circ at birth and got teased so now spends his time endlessly debunking proven medical benefits anyday. I really think most people need to hear the Dr's here. If you have the breast cancer gene and you might get it and decide to have both your breasts removed (as many do) make you crazy and the doctor a butcher just because you didn't develop the cancer yet? Think about it? There's a high chance that if you have this gene you will develop breast cancer, however, there is a chance you won't. Most doctors agree to go with the procedure because benefits out weight the risks. Does that mean these women are crazy and the doctor butchers? I don't thinks so.
I think everyone should check to see the CDC and AAP stance on the issue not some bitter guy at home on a computer with outrageous facts that are distorted.
Fact -protects against HIV many STDs the spread on HPV (anal warts), UTI's, certain cancers, etc. The list goes on please search.
I much prefer cut over uncut. I think because it protects against HIV and this is proven it's better defense against STD and infections. Plus, it looks and feels so much better. I woild give a big vote for YES I prefer it much more than UNCUT and I'm in a country where circumsision is not praticed as much as arab nations or USA.
I don't know how many women actually give it much thought. But, when they do, I think that women prefer a man to be circumcised. The number one reason for the preference is that, in western civilization, it is the norm. Then, there is the issue of cleanliness. Lots of folks associate a circumcised penis with a higher degree of cleanliness. Finally, many people believe that a circumcised penis is more enjoyable.
First of all, it looks better & no odor, plus the scar around is not that noticeable/bad looking. What is noticeable are uncircumcised penises. Why would I want a guy that has an odor down there all the time, unless they go wash up pretty good every-time before any sexual contact. I mean do guys like ugly vaginas that have an odor? I don't think so. So why would we?
First up, my personal opinion, I think circumcised penises look like mutilated, skinned mushrooms, and there's that ugly scar on it. They seriously gross me out. Get a restoration! Now for some facts, 85% of men, globally, are intact/uncircumcised, and the whole 'preference' thing is merely what women are accustomed to (and what their country's media has spoon-fed them), which would mean around 85% of women in the world prefer intact. It is a known fact that only a small minority in the world still actively practice circumcision (in America and Muslim/Jewish countries). Even the circumcision rate in America has dropped to 33.5% in 2009. Why? Well, let me tell you what, actual science and real medical institutions mention, and why San Francisco almost passed a bill to ban circumcision outright. Circumcision rates are on a steady decline in America. Why? Because -every- single "benefit" you've ever heard about male genital mutilation (circumcision) has been debunked with modern research. What propaganda in American media spews out is actually the -opposite- to what the actual evidence demonstrates: - The foreskin (which is present on an intact penis) has anti-bacterial properties and prevents infection, effectively -reducing- the chance of STD infection and is much cleaner. "Smegma" (Greek for "soap"), the natural lubricant in an intact male penis, is the reason for this (and what's gotten all the absolutely ridiculous blame for everything that was once thought to be "bad" about it). It's also -much- easier to wash than a female's genitals, and here's a little fact that that propaganda doesn't tell you: there is THREE times more smegma behind the labia and under the clitoral hood of a female's genitals than an intact man's, and it does not get auto-cleaned from a vagina either (it's not present inside it). If you really believe the completely false, debunked claims that intact are "unclean", than keep this in mind: the vagina would be THREE TIMES DIRTIER if that was the case. If you want some proof from the world around you that foreskin substantially reduces the risk of STD transmission, bacterial buildup and infection, take a look at real-world facts and add them together: America is the last Western nation to actively practice circumcision and has the highest number of circumcised males from any country in the Western world. Sum that up with this fact: America has the highest rate of STD transmission from any country in the world.| Not enough proof? Check some credible peer-reviewed sources and educate yourself about a sex organ known as the foreskin. - Babies have a -much- higher chance of dying from circumcision than from the almost non-existent penile cancer. - Visit Circumcision.org (the website of a non-profit organization that presents peer-reviewed, verifiable sources for proof of its claims, instead of ridiculous claims made for the 400-million-dollar business that is circumcision), for an actual scientific research that proves that sex with an intact man is -much- more pleasurable and satisfying for the woman than with a circumcised man. And it should be obvious: without a foreskin, vaginal dryness occurs, which can eventually make sex difficult and unpleasurable for the woman since the man's dry glans tends to scoop out the woman's natural lubricant (this explains why most cut men actually require artificial lubricant). - The foreskin has been found to absorb estrogen from the woman's vagina during intercourse, which has a psychological effect on the male which makes him more intimate towards the female. - Intact men can last MUCH longer during sex. Why? An intact man doesn't need to be "near climax" to feel pleasure, while a circumcised male NEEDS to be on the brink of ejaculation in order to feel any pleasure, which tends to make him want to finish as fast as possible. An uncircumcised male enjoys the entire journey (like the female), and unlike a circumcised male, an intact man can actually -feel-, easily, when he is near climax, allowing him to easily prevent it (and also easily prevent getting a girl pregnant by accident!). Hmm. "The teenage birth rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world, and the teenage abortion rate is also high." (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf). I wonder why. America also has the highest rate of erectile dysfunction in the developed world, and also the highest use of Viagara. A recent study had shown that intact penises are statistically larger than circumcised penises. This is due to a circumcised male's penis being restricted from most growth during puberty and childhood (there's a good reason the foreskin is initially adhered to the glans [self-cleaning] during childhood then separates: it's a part of the natural growth process). - The foreskin contains 20 000 nerve endings, while the clitoral hood of a female contains only 8000. These nerve endings are entirely devoted to sexual pleasure, but also pain. Female circumcision was banned in 1997 in America because of the negative trauma that girls grew up with from the pain from the procedure. When the brain of a -male- infant was tested before and after circumcision, the brain waves were disturbed, -permanently- after circumcision; believe it or not, this can have a drastic and permanent effect on their mental wellbeing, even if they pretend to be fine (technically they don't know the difference). A word of warning for mothers: if you're going to have this done to them, watch the procedure yourself. One mother, having watched it, was in mental trauma for decades, from witnessing the horrific screams of her child from the procedure. Well over 100 infants die every year in America from circumcision. ...Also, keep in mind that the vast majority of the "Yes" answers seem to be from both circumcised American males and paid advertisers, and from the looks of it, they had been brainwashed by a 400-million-dollar business. Not even the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends circumcision; and every single thing I've read from their responses are laughably false. Check "Intact and Famous" for a massive list of celebrities who are intact (e.g: Colin Farrell, Elvis Presley, James Dean, Dane Cook, Pierce Brosnan, Will Smith...). And there are several circled celebrities who actually hate the fact that they're circumcised: look them up. It is male genital mutilation that severely damages the man, and the woman as well. Want evidence for my claims? Check them for yourself from -credible-, scientific sources, instead of propaganda from paid media advertisements. And another thing, that comment on the "Yes" section that starts off with "Some want it even mandatory!", judging from the link he or she has given to an article, it's from some third-world African country, and the poster refers to it as his or her own country. They practice that like rituals from a ridiculous, biased, and now-disproven "study" from over a century ago, in a developing African country that didn't know how to practice the scientific method properly at the time. Look up details on that and you'll notice that it was the most ridiculously biased "study" you'll ever see.
I prefer intact. In my experience intact lovers have been better. Also, cut means most likely cut as a baby. Think about it! You're cutting off a piece of your child's genitals! That's messed up. It's illegal to cut a girl's genitals, why is it okay to cut a boy's genitals? People try to justify it with all kinds of arguments, but the fact remains you are CUTTING your child!
I thought it was better, I had one other man in my life and he wasn't circumcised. My guy now is circumcised and I find he is always so freakin dry... My V-jay can only lube so much... and I find he doesn't lube and I'm not sure if that is the cause. My pervious guy who wasn't circumcised was always lubed, not sure if that is a factor and I'm embarrassed to ask him about it. Because sex becomes painful after awhile. Am I right?
I wasn't cut. I have had a fair number of sexual relationships and the females were quite satisfied. So much so that a few of them later chose not to cut their sons even though their husbands were cut. That makes a pretty strong statement. I'd never cut my sons, of course, as I really enjoy having my foreskin and I don't want to deprive them of the pleasure of having a whole penis.
Foreskin is not just a useless skin it got nerves and veins and even smooth muscle,tough i am my self circumcised i would not do that and wont let anyone to do that to my son if i going to have any.I wish if there was a way to regenerate foreskin.
Males who are uncircumcised have better orgasms as I have experienced and it is more comfortable during sex. Also nowadays science says that men who are circumcised barely have any orgasmic feeling and in my experience makes sex for me way more uncomfortable. And uncircumcised penis is also bigger. So this is why I say what I say.
Only American women would prefer a mutilated penis because they've been indoctrinated to believe it looks better. An operation that is potentially life threatening should not be taken just to make someone fit in with other people who have had an operation to fit in. It has no venture. I am unmutilated and have found that any "hygiene problems" are made up.
I am circumcised, 20, and now I have no feeling what so ever unless my girlfriend gives me the death grip. Circumcision is a crime and takes away almost all feeling of sensation in the penis. It is natural for guys to have a foreskin, it is equal to cutting off the clit and the labia of a women just for hygiene concern. Women can get over the look and appreciate the way god intended the penis to be.
By cutting part of the penis off (the foreskin) your reduce its size. As well, males with circumcised penises experience a reduction in testosterone development and so do not grow to be as large (height wise and penis wise) It is also proven that size matters. Finally, the foreskin helps to stimulate the woman's G-Spot and bring her pleasure through orgasm.
The ignorance on the left makes me want to slam my head against the wall. So many lies and myths being said by these pro-cutters. Only women who haven't been lucky to be with a WHOLE man will say they prefer cut men. The fact is natural sex (meaning intact sex) is so much better. Less friction, more pleasure for both the man and the woman. Cut sex is not normal. There is too much friction. A cut penis is basically a dildo since there are no movable parts like in a whole penis.