Being "cut" myself - I've always though its the way to go - with the alternative being kinda nasty.. Now recent studies have revealed that in fact circumcision may be healthier, and less prone to contracting STDs ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8715260/ ).. This news notwithstanding, what do women think of the aesthetic of cut vs uncut?
2006-08-16 05:26:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
should be noted that male circumcision and female circumcision are related in name only.. the latter being a menas to deny pleasure, while arguably the former actually INCREASES pleasure ... as my feminst friends would be quick to point out, 'twas probably a man who coined the term "female circumcision" – which shold more aptly be described as genital mutilation.
Also, to my knowledge - cut or uncut has no bearing on erection size as the foreskin is pretty much superfluous and has no "structural" significance (it's a muscle that gives the hustle)
2006-08-16 05:45:22 · update #1
I am sure that circumcision helps in the prevention of some things because the man doesn't have to pull back skin all the time to keep clean.But a man who cares about his own health will keep his stuff clean regardless . Now as to looks they look better snipped than hanging ,but they do the same work.
2006-08-16 05:40:26 · answer #1 · answered by punkin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea.... I do like circumsized ones. They actually seem...harder and overall more attractive. But, yea, it doesn't seem common and it's mostly only my first b/f's that I know of was nice that way. I guess it's something I'd rather not have to pick a guy by though. It's crappy enough that the guy's dick size influences how much more I like him or not. Unless it's just the fact that they should all be skinnier. Man, I'm shallow. Heh.
On a side note, it seems that although circumsized ones are somewhat cleaner, it's not entirely a neccessary procedure. In fact, most men are opposed to it. It's like, if we're complaining men aren't clean b/c they're not circumsized, then what are you thinking about a womens area? They may as well start getting female circumcisions too. Which btw, is a very harsh and mean procedure to women and is basically banned in most countries. It comes down to being the choice of hte parents, but it's not necessary.
2006-08-16 05:38:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First hubby cut, second hubby not. Makes no difference at all, except soft the uncut looks funny, but then again doesn't take long to make it hard. They do have to be clean though, and know enough to pull it back and clean in there, but most parents would teach their sons to do that. And it is actually kind of fun feeling the skin slide back and forth.
2006-08-16 05:32:30 · answer #3 · answered by just me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never had the pleasure of experiencing one but I have seen one and sorry to say I was a little grossed out. I had both of my kids circumcised. It looks better and it's what most females are comfortable with. You can practice safe sex without the extra skin.
2006-08-16 05:33:17 · answer #4 · answered by lovelee1 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I use to think it mattered and perfered men that was cut, but when its erect they look the same. and if some one is not cut they just have to make sure they clean good, meaning pulling back the skin. Also i think men who are not cut are bigger because their extra skin wasn't cut so when they get erect they have more skin to grow into when erect
2006-08-16 05:34:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like the cut look.
2006-08-16 05:40:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ugh, extra skin that's nasty. bacteria can get in there. circumcision all the way.
2006-08-16 05:44:27 · answer #7 · answered by shi shi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's gotta be cut, or I'm outa here.
2006-08-16 05:31:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i personally don't mind if they are or not. i think they are cleaner if they are but it's not too common that i know of, so yeeeah.
2006-08-16 05:32:10 · answer #9 · answered by hmm.. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋