I would imagine for a woman, she would prefer a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one. I think it just looks a bit more appealing for them and more of a sexual turn on. However, I am not a woman and obviously do not EXACTLY what goes through their mind.
Not a lot of people show off their stuff in public, and when they do, well, it's illegal. But in television, movies, and pornography, it is more common to see a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised penis. The natural reaction to the uncircumcised penis, with its additional skin, is, if not disgust, curiosity. We are quite comfortable as a society with the appearance of a circumcised penis, whether that is morally correct or not.
Most people would agree that the circumcised penis has a better appearance. By cutting off a smal flap of skin, doctors can make the entire penis look bigger. Also, circumcision is much cleaner. It is good for a man's health and appearance to get circimcised shortly after he is born.
A circumcised penis looks clean. It has a shape and is clearly defined. An non circumcised penis looks dirty. The skin doesn't really fit around the penis. It makes it look wrinkly, like the skin is old. I've even asked other girls, and they've all agreed. They'd rather look at a circumcised penis.
Attitude and education, based on logic.
As a taboo subject, it is thought of as a form of mutilation, and also not explained in the media, about the health benefits.
Foreskins harbour germs.
Why is it under the headline (cosmetic)?
You mean to say that cosmetic surgery is carried out on babies. That have no say in the matter?
The USA does this as a routine procedure in babies, as in Canada.
The Uk did this as a routine procedure, but was stopped in 1947, by a so called proffessor of medicine. His Name was Douglas Gairdner
Much cleaner and attractive to have a bare head than a wrinkly anteater. Study's continually show no difference in sexual pleasure between cut and uncut, this is because the nerves that produce sexual pleasure are in the glans "head" not the foreskin, yes there is feeling in the foreskin but not the sexual pleasure type. I should know as I was circumcised at 19 by choice not necessity. All this talk about foreskin being so sexually sensitive is propaganda I never once focused on my foreskin as a pleasure zone.
No way, circumcised penises are trendy, clean , beautiful, healthy, sexualy much more attractive, especially when circumcision is tight .If an adult man decides to become circumcised, the decision should be based on personal preference and medical necessity and maybe circumcision should be considered as vaccination. All parents should support boys in their decisions to be circumcised.
Circumcised penises look beautiful and make the penis look bigger. I would not want to sleep with a man who is not circumcised. I was not yet confronted with this issue, but aesthetically circumcised penises are superior.
Overall however this is also a cultural matter and in countries were circumcision is unusual people might consider uncut penises more visibly pleasing.
I will put this personally because this is definitely a personal question. Scars are not attractive. Knowing the reason why your partner cannot be gentle and make love to you because of his circumcision, is not at all appealing. There are many problems connected to this issue, but the main point is that my physical attraction has nothing to do with how aesthetically pleasing their penis is, and everything to do with their masculinity and what pleasure I know they are capable of giving me.
Every circumcised penis has a scar. High circumcision causes a double-toned penis (where the skin shifts into the mucosa). The glans becomes dry with years (I remember realizing this during my thirties). The shape and function of the frenulum is destroyed.
As an art student, I was accustomed to the look of the normal penis in classic art (Greek, Roman, Renaissance). This contradicted my own appearance. I still think that circumcised penises have a very limited place in art.
That, without counting complications that can occur from circumcision, such as skin bridges, skin tags (I have two), uneven scars (mine is uneven), meatal stenosis. No, not good.
One of the many reasons I finally realized circumcision is wrong, is the difference in appearance of an intact penis. It was so very clear that the natural penis was the way it was meant to be. It was actually...Prettier. The head was smooth and supple, and dare I say sexy? I had no idea that the lines and wrinkles and color of a circumcised penis were actually the signs of damage from the procedure. It broke my heart for not knowing this earlier. I truly wish someone had educated me years ago.
Does a double mastectomized woman look better?
Does a person with amputated legs look better?
Does a person with gouged eyes look better?
Does a burned body look better?
Since when is a scar, which is a reminder that something used to be there before, pleasing to the eye? Horrible!
Especially in children - why do parents want their little boys do look permanently erect? In adult males, the erect penis looks very similar whether cut or uncut - the only difference is that the mutilated penis takes on a dried-out, calloused appearance over time.
Adults can do whatever they want with their bodies, but Routine Infant Circumcision is barbaric and unnecessary.
The male foreskin contains over 20,000 specialized nerve-endings; in contrast, the female clitoris contains only 8,000! Why would any man not want to have that; why would any parent want to deprive their son of a full and natural sex life?
In Europe, where baby boys are not routinely mutilated at birth, boys and men are not running around with rampant infections. Men are happy to have 100% of the bodies they were born with, to use and enjoy as God/Nature intended. The foreskin serves many protective and pleasurable (for BOTH partners!) purposes and is MEANT to be there. The rest of the civilized world looks at us Americans, still cutting our boys, with the same horror and disgust with which we look upon cultures who cut their girls.
"When it comes to holding down perfectly healthy babies and severing flesh from their bodies, how much can you cut away before it becomes morally wrong?”
But again, if an adult man elects to have the procedure - all power to him. By then he will be fully aware of what he is giving up. His body, his choice.
First of all there are studies about this very question, in countries that don't circumcise women and men prefer the intact natural penis, in countries where circumcision has been normal for a few generation like the United States, women prefer a cut member, but what does that matter, we not have a circumcision rate of less than 50% in the US, in a few generation the practice will be pretty much gone, and people will prefer a natural penis again, because that'll be what they are used too.
Circumcision is a load of crap, a superstition sold as medicine, and moms and dads across the nation are hearing us.
I am circumcised and wish my parents respected my whole, natural body.
Foreskin is there for a reason, there is no need to be chopping off healthy body parts off of non-consenting minors.
The circumcised penis does not have a superior appearance. This is because of the fact that the uncircumcised penis is more natural, and it is the way that we are born. There is no real need to have circumcised penises as long as they are cleaned. Circumcised penises are mutilated.
The circumcised penis doesn't have a superior appearance to the uncircumcised penis. However, Americans are more used to seeing the former, so they're somewhat fearful of the latter. There are very few differences between the circumcised and uncircumcised penis as far as doctors are concerned. With that in mind, it's really a matter of preference.
While appearance falls into the category of being a body modification and therefore subjective, that's hardly the point. Circumcision is amputation (actually, since it is unnecessary and the owner of the penis has not given consent, it is also a mutilation). If find the premise of the poll questionable. How distasteful would the question be if it were, say, "Do mastectomized breasts have a superior appearance?"