The pro's and cons of foreskin?

Question

Whats the difference? Is it better to have it or no to have it??

Answer 1

It's better to have it!

ADVANTAGES OF BEING INTACT:
--Circumcision cuts WAY down on sexual enjoyment for the man due to loss of nerve-rich foreskin. A new study proves conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that circumcision decreases sensitivity for the man. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
--Getting cut causes the glans (head) to develop a keratinized layer to protect from rubbing on clothing, further cutting sensation. Many cut men are unable to ejaculate during intercourse and have to finish by hand. Intact men can go all the way.
--nine out of ten women who have had both prefer intact penises: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html That's really pretty definitive.
--foreskin makes masturbation more fun - and better for your partner to play with.
--Circumcision hurts when it's done, even if you were too young to remember it
--a cut penis looks kind of sad with that scar where the foreskin belongs. Uncut is much hotter looking.
--Circumcision has a slight chance of complications. Each year a few baby boys have to have their entire penises amputated and undergo surgery to make them into fake girls. And a few die.

ADVANTAGES OF BEING CUT: Circumcision has no advantages that are not fictional or only relevant in a few areas
--You can be just as clean if you are uncircumcised. Wash. It's THAT simple. Even if you're cut, you still need to wash.
-- If you're sleeping around, you need to use condoms regardless or you will get diseases.
--Some studies have shown a lower rate of cancer of the penis in cut guys, but this cancer is so rare that it's hard to get a good statistical sample. More boys/men die each year from botched circumcisions than from cancer of the penis.
--Recent reports from Africa say that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS from unprotected hetrosexual activity. This has little relevance to areas of the world where condoms are cheap, readily available, and culturally acceptable. The US has the highest circumcision rate in the developed world and also the highest AIDS rate in that group. http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html

Answer 2

They both have pros and cons. Other members on here have addressed them quite well.

If you need more information on the foreskin and how it works, check these links out:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://www.hachettebookgroupusa.com/books/70/0446678805/chapter_excerpt15690.html

Ultimately, whatever your man is, accept him for what he is and take advantage of it to the most you can. =) You can check out this link if interested; I wrote it:
http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p=3069995&postcount=2

I'm uncircumcised and to clean it you just slide it back and rub the head, which takes a few seconds (less than 10) and feels good (it's the head!).

The foreskin is analogous to the clitoral hood on the female. The best way I can say it is it's like your eyelids; inside and out. (it's moist inside). And of course, it slides up and down as you wish to rub the head with; so when erect sometimes you can't tell the difference with some guys as to whether he's cut or not.

Answer 3

Pros And Cons Of Foreskin

Answer 4

This question is posted so often, I don't often respond, but Nick's information (previous post about the Internation AID conference) was SO wrong I had to correct it!

First, the study he mentions applied only to African men who have multiple partners, most of whom are sex workers. It is true that due to poor hygiene, which results in inflamation of the foreskin, there was a higher transmission rate for uncircumcised men. However, the WHO and other authorities do NOT support the idea of circumcision to prevent AIDs, except in that area of the world.

The foreskin is mucous membrane, and as such does provide an easier passage into the bloodstream for HIV particles. However, there is NO difference in infection rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men who use condoms consistently. And without condoms, the circumcised men ALSO acquired AIDS, but at about half the rate of the uncircumcised men. To put that in perspective, the reason that they became infected was poor hygiene, and the lack of condoms.

Anyone who relies on circumcision to prevent AIDs is likely to end up dead. Everyone should use condoms when having sex with multiple partners.

Answer 5

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
The pro's and cons of foreskin?
Whats the difference? Is it better to have it or no to have it??

Answer 6

That decision was made for me when I was a baby. I really wish my mom had left that up to me to decide. As goofy as it is to admit, I've had this discussion with many of my male friends. We've come to the conclusion that guys who are circumcised seem to have less sensitivity while guys who aren't are much more sensitive. Again, that's purely based on about 12 guys ranging from 30-45 who have had a few beers and are willing to talk about it.

My uncut friends say they worry about odor sometimes, so they make sure to pull the skin back and wash really well. Although their girlfriends have said they've never noticed any "extra" odors over the circumcised guys they've been with.

The girlfriends did say, however, that uncut guys don't seem to have as much friction during intercourse as cut guys do. But of course using a condom made it the same for either.

So in closing... not that I've given any real answer at all, but I wish the decision had been left up to me. My mom said she had it done because "everybody said I should." Not the best reason if ya ask me.

See the link below for more info on the benefits of not being circumcised.

Answer 7

Up to about a year ago there was a big push to leave the foreskin on men and have everyone learn to love it. The idea of cutting the foreskin off didn't seem to be important and the benefits didn't seem to out weight the cutting of the foreskin. That was until last year at the HIV International Conference in Toronto, Canada, where it was reported that the spread of HIV was much greater in uncircumcised males than in circumcised males. This was due to the fact that hygiene was not done properly and the Virus thrived in the uncut foreskin. So therefore cutting of the foreskin that has been done by generation of the more advanced countries and races have proven to be the most hygienic and most responsible for the health and welfare of males around the world. It is now data that suggests that it is better to be circumcised than not.

Answer 8

Pro's:

- possibly more sensitive
- easier to manually stimulate
- less likely to need extra lube during sex
- its the natural way

Con's

- possibly better control without
- most (though not all) women prefer without for oral
- some women claim to feel more friction without
- some evidence that without decreases odds of catching STD's - although with a condom, won't matter.

Answer 9

Its an interesting question, I was going to ask something like it so seeing the answers concerning loss of sensitivity have been interesting. My question would have been, when did circumcision start, and who thought it up? We know the Hebrews did it as a religious rite, but what other cultures do it, and who started it? It does not seem like the kind of thing that would pop into your mind spontaneously. If it had been left up to me I would have rather been left intact.

Answer 10

Pro: It's more sensitive.
Con: It can get infected.