Are you jealous of foreskin?

[boatnik]

I love the look and feel of my circumcised cock. Never had a foreskin and never wan't one.

 

[BlackSunshineAZ]

I love my cock but wish I wasn't cut. I am envious of those with a smooth, shiny glans and a decent amount of overhang. I got to inspect an uncut cock a few years ago and found it fascinating.

 

[keenobserver]

I am uncut and like what I have. I like cock so I don't care if a guy is uncut or cut as long as everything is clean and well maintained. Sweat I don't mind at all - a little funky smell is okay - but cheese is a mood killer.

 

[Geoffrey2_0]

No

 

[buster67]

To answer the OP.No not jealous I've never had it my whole life so I don't know anything different. I don't know why anybody would be. You are the way you are .big little medium cut uncut .veiny or not veiny enjoy what you have do the best you can with it and love the one you're with.

 

[someperson]

I love the look and feel of my circumcised cock. Never had a foreskin and never wan't one.

SOME circumcised cock. looks like a burn victim .

 

[teu10]

Yes, sometimes

 

[HankJo]

I'm not jealous, but I sure do wish my foreskin had not been removed as a baby. I know I am missing out in sensation and pleasure. To what degree, I will never know...

 

[art]

I'm uncut, and glad of it. Mine works very well, and is an Awesome Instrument of Sex.

Not jealous of guys who are cut. I don't really care one way or another whether a sex partner is cut or uncut. So long as they're happy with how they are.

 

[libear]

I live in the NE part of the US there are many guys that tell me bring uncut is a deal breaker, the few times I've been over seas...non issue.

 

[Iorek]

Yes but it's not eating me up inside. I'm just offended because the best and most likely reason my parents did it was because dad is cut. I have virtually 0 head sensitivity.

 

[Hatt_101]

Not at all.

 

[Infernal]

Jealous of something I never knew I had - no.

I enjoy playing with others who have them, but I don't feel I'm missing anything myself.

 

[BulgeNine]

Jealous of something I never knew I had - no.

but you do know you had it, and the function of your dick would have been 25% more significant. Not to mention it just adds a little more substance. The reality is it was taken from you. But im glad that you have a great outlook on it, it bothers me but i dont let it get in the way of anything at all.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Jealous of FORESKIN?

I mean… what exactly has your foreskin accomplished of which I might be jealous?

Does it date Scarlett Johansen?

Drive a Bentley or nice Yacht?

Have some kind of heart melting singing voice?


Seriously… how the fuck could anyone be jealous of a vestigial sheath on someone else's dick?

Some "men" really need to get some broader perspective in life than obsessing over something so infinitesimally inconsequential.

 

[karldergrosse]

Phil, just a friendly comment or two: Individuals, even the "men" [sic] whom you seem to scorn, vary considerably. Perhaps some are "obsessing" (which is their right if they so choose), but it would seem that most of them are merely concerned. BUT, when you call the foreskin "a vestigial sheath" you are clearly, demonstrably mistaken. "Vestigial" means that an organ has become evolutionarily useless and is most likely in the process of being eliminated by nature. Nothing could be further from the truth about the valuable foreskin---it has been around as long as humans (and other mammals) have existed, and is here to stay for a myriad of sound reasons. I won't belabor the issue by citing pages of facts, but will instead suggest that you make use of the internet to correct your misconceptions for your own edification (www.intactamerica.org is a good concise source; more thorough is www.circumstitions.com; and there are many others).

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Phil, just a friendly comment or two: Individuals, even the "men" [sic] whom you seem to scorn, vary considerably. Perhaps some are "obsessing" (which is their right if they so choose), but it would seem that most of them are merely concerned. BUT, when you call the foreskin "a vestigial sheath" you are clearly, demonstrably mistaken. "Vestigial" means that an organ has become evolutionarily useless and is most likely in the process of being eliminated by nature. Nothing could be further from the truth about the valuable foreskin---it has been around as long as humans (and other mammals) have existed, and is here to stay for a myriad of sound reasons. I won't belabor the issue by citing pages of facts, but will instead suggest that you make use of the internet to correct your misconceptions for your own edification (Circumcision is Medically Unnecessary, Painful, Risky, and Unethical: Intact America is a good concise source; more thorough is The Intactivism Pages; and there are many others).

I know what the term means. And sorry, but that is what it is.

Its how evolutionary biologists describe it. And you're welcome to find ANY accredited scientist who is not some member of the Anti-Circ hysterics crowd who would suggest that it is NOT a vestigial form of sheathe.
But I suspect you don't post pages of references because you know full well those sites would be really easy to discredit as anti-circ propaganda. ( like posting 9/11 truther sites as evidence of conspiracy )

Sorry… but the notion that because its been around thru all of human history that that means its not vestigial illustrates that you have no actual understanding of evolution or the rate of mutation. Not to mention that there is ZERO evidence in the fossil of record of foreskins of any kind, ergo- you have no proof whatsoever that the foreskin has not changed significantly in the million years or so of the various species we label "homo".

Modern human beings have only been around about 200,000 years… and, Because the foreskin leaves no fossil trace, you can cite no evidence that the foreskin was not different back then.

On the other hand, complications of foreskin morphology are numerous, and growing in frequency among populations that do not circumcise; Foreskins that are too tight to expose the glans during erection, or that have more frenulum tissue than average and so can not retract at all.

Once more… if you actually knew anything about evolution you would realize that such common variations that negatively impact erectile function are evidence of drift in a trait that offers no particular advantage. It is clear that the only reason to protect the sensitive glass is so that when it is exposed by retraction of the sheathe it can be stimulated. Ergo, the foreskin is not there to Rub the glans or provide stimulation…. its SUPPOSED to get out of the way like the 'foreskin' of EVERY OTHER MAMMAL on earth. This proves that a foreskin that does NOT allow flu exposure of the glans is, in fact, a genetic or developmental LOSS or primary functionality…. which is a hallmark of non-advantageous traits that are suffering drift, i.e. becoming vestigial.

Beyond that, traits that become vestigial are NOT species specific. That is, they become vestigial over the evolution of multiple species. Various forms of primate exhibit various forms of "foreskin" ranging from something not much different from us… to nearly complete sheathes… and these variations appear to become more sheathe like in morphology And function as the genes of each species diverge from our own…. that is, the farther BACK their lineage appears to have diverged from our own, the more of a sheathe they are likely to sport.

Thus… it is absolutely clear that the sheathe is a trait that offered no significant advantage to the primate lines that lead to US… and so the trait drifted into less and less of a functional feature.

So- once more… saying shit is true or not true is easy. Try offering some evidence, some analogy or some line of reasoning supporting your claim if you want me or any relatively educated and unbiased reader to credit your assertions.
-Because what you posted is no different than saying "oh no it isn't" as your actual argument.


It is vestigial. ( ask any evolutionary biologist who's not obsessed with uncut cock porn )

Foreskins creates complication in function for people who have them more often than does circumcision. ( by a small margin )

Foreskins do show increased vulnerability to infection by multiple STDs ( scientifically proven )

Uncut penises do suffer an increased incidence of penile cancer ( again, verifiably true )


ALL of which have ZERO bearing on whether YOU happen to LIKE uncut cock better than those that are cut.
I am more than fine with people expressing their LOVE of foreskin… how much it excites them, or how much they like the way it looks or feels.

I am more than fine with folks trying to persuade others to like it as much as they do.


But when people utter bald faced lies about how it serves an important function ( never demonstrated ) or that circumcision "harms" those who have one… ( No more so than those harmed by malformed foreskins ) or that circumcision offers zero medical benefit…. ( proven to confer lower STD transmission rates in studies from the 1930's and recently proven again by WHO in HIV studies in Africa ) ...
…. when lies are being bandied about for the express purpose of DISinforming people about something that is empirically knowable…. then I will challenge those lies.


But then…. I respond in the same way over the lies of the 9/11 'truthers' - the lies of the religious, and the lies of essentially every minute of airtime on FOXNews.

I don't care if you're cut or uncut. I just hate people treating what little real knowledge we actually DO acquire as if its a matter of opinion. The smartphone, tablet or computer you read this on does not exist as the result of opinions… it exists because SOME people insist on separating what is demonstrably true from what is just belief.


You are justified in complaining about my attitude toward the anti-circ crusaders…

I find the obsessive concern of the pro-foreskin crowd to be pathologically immature. If you were cut as a child… then get the fuck over it and move on with your life. Just as you would over losing a TOE.

And if you're not… fine, enjoy it and all…

but either way….stop obsessing over it as a mission in your life to meddle in other people's lives or outlaw something that many people, for reasons cultural or epidemiological, feel to be beneficial.

That is, whether folks should be cut, or not, is purely a matter of opinion.
But their REASONING supporting that choice ought to be founded in verifiable knowledge… wherever we can actually ascertain truthful knowledge.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS- saying that circumcision is not 'medically necessary' is an insipid dodge.

No- its not medically 'corrective' and no, having a foreskin is not a 'condition' that requires treatment. ( at least, as long as the foreskin is not malformed… which it sometimes is ) Medically Necessary is a term doctors use to describe things that NEED to be corrected because otherwise the patient's health or survival is compromised immediately.

But that has no bearing on the fact that circumcision DOES reduce transmission rates of many diseases. ( when those with them become sexually active- 12-20 years later )
And ANY site claiming that it does not is simply propaganda… Just like sites with scientific sounding titles that claim global warming is not happening…. they are easy to find. But that does't make it true.

The rate of transmission in the US after RIC was adopted fell dramatically when that generation children became sexually active. Recent, more rigorous, studies by WHO have proven the protective effect… and those studies led to tissue experiments that uncovered several possible reasons why foreskin tissue is more susceptible to infection.

So… is it "medically necessary"? no. But Neither is vaccination. No child necessarily needs "medical treatment" for a disease they do not actually have.

But that is not the same thing as saying vaccination is not beneficial.

So Does circumcision confer a health benefit?
YES, but, like vaccination, only when widely adopted as a public health measure.

That is, in a population with MOSTLY circumcised men… you are less likely to get infected partly because you have higher resistance to infection… but mostly because each of your partners are less likely to have been infected- so you are less frequently exposed to infection.

However, if you are the sole circumcised male in an otherwise Uncut population… while you yourself are less likely to be infected in any one encounter… your partners are, each, MORE likely to have been infected…. which means you are exposed to infection more often, which can defeat your lower susceptibility thru sheer opportunity.

Those are the medical facts.

In a nation of mostly cut males… it makes little difference if a few choose to be uncut.

In a nation of mostly uncut males… everybody, even those who are cut, are at higher risk because the vectors of infection are multiplied.

Stop searching for "language" that doesn't actually support your assertion.

 

[curtdude]

when I was younger I did have the skin but in my late teens 19 i got circumcised so now yes I am jealous I wish I had it back

 

[eurotop40]

I got rid of mine 3 years ago. Wish I had done it before.