Woman would u have sex with an uncut guy?

[tenkiller]

There have been several HIV circumcision studies done. Funny thing is that there are just as many "Circumcised/Uncircumcised makes no difference" as there are "Circumcised men are less at risk" studies but you never hear about them on the news. They are just about only discussed in Medical/scientific circles. The latest say there is no difference in the presence or lack of foreskin in transmitting or acquiring HIV. There are circumcising countries with extremely high HIV rates and there are noncircumcising countries that have extremely low HIV rates.

As for a child being different from his father, before the 1940s, circumcision was rare in the US. Then during WWII, circumcision became routine. Permission to perform circumcision or other surgeries was not even asked for, the MDs just did it. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that written permission to do ANY surgery had to be given. So fathers in WWII era were coming home to sons that were not like themselves. Their sons were being circumcised without permission. It didn't matter if they looked like dad or not. That was just 60 years ago.

I am not circumcised. I was born in the 1960s. I never have had a girl to refuse sex from me because I had a foreskin. I have had several say that they were glad that I was uncircumcised. I have not been made fun of either. Most of the guys I went to school with were uncircumcised as well. No big deal. Just different.
I do think that uncut men are more sensitive. There can be no other way about that. I am told due to the foreskin sex is more comfortable to the woman. I last longer than circumcised men too. If I need to stop an impending orgasm I can hide in the foreskin until the urge passes.

 

[Underwraps]

Very well said. I'm just wondering only few girls give their
opinion on this matter.

I'm female. Looking at it, esthetically a cut one looks nicer as long as the cut isn't done too way down and then it looks painful when they're hard. Otherwise, it's not such a big deal. This topic is parallel to the one about women and their labia. What would kill me is a guy who is uncut thinking a woman with "long lips" is disgusting. It would hypocritical. It's all natural and is just a part of the variety of human genitalia. No big deal either way (except for the really really bazaar long lipped or very weirdly looking penises).

In other words, I'm okay if he's okay with my "uniqueness".

 

[lookinfit75]

Most men outside the US are only circumsised for religious or medical reasons, so it is rare to find a cut man.

The operation is barbaric, and the equivalent of female circumsision.

It was initially done in Victorian times to keep men from masturbating, I think there must be a reduction in sensitivity, it is obviously there for a reason.

If you don't think doing this to your son is cruel and barbaric, take a look at Tatyana's photos section and tell me that's something you would purposefully do to your own flesh and blood. Never would I do that to my son and I am glad my father didn't do it to me.
It is also my understanding that a vast majority of a man's sensitivity is in that region so why would I want to deprive my son of that?
As for female circumcision, well THAT is the most barbaric and misogynistic thing ever conceived by man. I saw of a video of an tribe in Africa doing that to a little girl and I almost threw up. The SOB literally cut off the little girl's clitoris with what appeared to be a blunt knife and no anesthesia. The angst in the child's cries was gut wrenching and gave me nightmares.

 

[stevesmi]

wow there are so many myths on here.

first off the only reason people get circumsized is for religious reasons (they have carried down the myth of cleaniness for thousands of years jews and muslims in particular) and cause of bs myths like the HIV thing someone posted etc. which is complete horseshit.

secondly the girls i have been with have all said they enjoyed sex with me more cause i had skin, the skin feels better and is natural.

to say its better to be circumsized is ignorant. more adult men today are getting skin added back then getting circumsized. it is just a way for docs to make some extra money when your son is born, thats all. it has zero benefit unless you live in the jungle with no access to modern plumbing. if you shower everyday and keep it clean down there it makes no difference whatsoever regarding cleaniness.

and YES i used to be self consious about it until i started having sex and the women said they enjoyed it more with guys who weren't cut.

 

[nangiggles]

wow there are so many myths on here.

first off the only reason people get circumsized is for religious reasons (they have carried down the myth of cleaniness for thousands of years jews and muslims in particular) and cause of bs myths like the HIV thing someone posted etc. which is complete horseshit.

secondly the girls i have been with have all said they enjoyed sex with me more cause i had skin, the skin feels better and is natural.

to say its better to be circumsized is ignorant. more adult men today are getting skin added back then getting circumsized. it is just a way for docs to make some extra money when your son is born, thats all. it has zero benefit unless you live in the jungle with no access to modern plumbing. if you shower everyday and keep it clean down there it makes no difference whatsoever regarding cleaniness.

and YES i used to be self consious about it until i started having sex and the women said they enjoyed it more with guys who weren't cut.

I didnt pull the information out of my ass or see it on some BS blog, i's a known FACT that it helps prevent HIV and you can educate yourself about it in serious places like the world health organization and the center for disease control...

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
WHO | Male circumcision for HIV prevention

I've been with cut and uncut guys and doesnt really make much of a difference as per sensation

 

[Mr. dB]

I didnt pull the information out of my ass or see it on some BS blog, i's a known FACT that it helps prevent HIV and you can educate yourself about it in serious places like the world health organization and the center for disease control...

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
WHO | Male circumcision for HIV prevention

I've been with cut and uncut guys and doesnt really make much of a difference as per sensation

I'm not convinced that this isn't junk science.

I suspect that (1) there's an agenda involved (money), and bad statistics. When they compare HIV rates in Sub-Saharan Africa between cut and uncut groups, do they take into account cultural differences such as religion? Cut Africans are likely to be Muslim, and may be less promiscuous.

Anyway, if you look at all the AIDS male deaths in the US, I bet 90% or more of them were circumcised, so it sure didn't help them.

I also saw some statistics that circumcision reduces the risk of "penile cancer" by some percentage. First of all, there's no such thing as "penile cancer", it's skin cancer on the skin of the penis, just like the skin cancer you can get anywhere else on your body. Secondly, the percentage of risk involved was roughly the same as the percentage of skin removed. So you take off 25% of the penile skin and reduce the risk of skin cancer there by 25%? Kind of stands to reason... And anyway, "penile cancer" rates in men are vanishingly low, there are half as many cases reported as there are breast cancer in men.

Circumcision doesn't eliminate the need for practicing safe sex for AIDS prevention, and if you're practicing safe sex then there's no need for circumcision.

 

[nangiggles]

In the first link there is a section labeled "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United" so it;s not just statistics in Africa

States

I'm not convinced that this isn't junk science.

I suspect that (1) there's an agenda involved (money), and bad statistics. When they compare HIV rates in Sub-Saharan Africa between cut and uncut groups, do they take into account cultural differences such as religion? Cut Africans are likely to be Muslim, and may be less promiscuous.

Anyway, if you look at all the AIDS male deaths in the US, I bet 90% or more of them were circumcised, so it sure didn't help them.

I also saw some statistics that circumcision reduces the risk of "penile cancer" by some percentage. First of all, there's no such thing as "penile cancer", it's skin cancer on the skin of the penis, just like the skin cancer you can get anywhere else on your body. Secondly, the percentage of risk involved was roughly the same as the percentage of skin removed. So you take off 25% of the penile skin and reduce the risk of skin cancer there by 25%? Kind of stands to reason... And anyway, "penile cancer" rates in men are vanishingly low, there are half as many cases reported as there are breast cancer in men.

Circumcision doesn't eliminate the need for practicing safe sex for AIDS prevention, and if you're practicing safe sex then there's no need for circumcision.

This I do agree with to a high extent, you dont HAVE to do it, but it does indeed help to have it....

 

[Mr. dB]

In the first link there is a section labeled "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United" so it;s not just statistics in Africa

States
This I do agree with to a high extent, you dont HAVE to do it, but it does indeed help to have it....

I doubt it helps enough to be worthwhile, compared to the benefits of leaving it alone.