- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Posts
- 78,021
- Media
- 1,631
- Likes
- 113,035
- Points
- 393
- Location
- Austin, Texas, US
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
For USA born Uncut males only. Why were you left uncut?
- Thread starter Uncutsouthernboy
- Start date
I and all my 4 brothers are uncut. We are US Army brats. My dad is not either. He was career Army. Mom just said that it was not even discussed. My oldest brother is 52 years old. All three of his sons are cut. Another brother left his 2 sons uncut. My youngest's son is not. My son is. He was left uncut until he was 4 years old. The doctor said it wouldn't retract. So he cut it. He made a mess of it. It has skin growing to the head that comes from below the scar. His mother showed it to the doctor and he said it was ok. He is now 27. My own has a slit up the back. I don't remember it happening. I am told it was too tight. I look totally uncut with a loose foreskin.
dgantt
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Posts
- 158
- Media
- 9
- Likes
- 17
- Points
- 238
- Location
- New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
All of my mom's brothers and her dad were apparently uncut. My dad wasn't, nor was his brother. I guess there was a big thing about it on Oprah she saw as well and convinved my dad that she did not want this to be done to me. THANK GOD. I know that cousins on my moms side are not cut either.
it is interesting you ask that question. in all honesty for me it is not cultural practice in my family to do so. my brothers did because of some complications but they are the only ones. I know that I have made the choice not to have my sons cut if/when i have them.
State did not pay for it at the time , post 1982 85%-90% are uncut if they were born here
Interesting statistic, I certainly hope it's true. Now if only other states were as enlightened.
As for me, I wasn't cut at birth because my brother was not. Mom wanted her sons to be alike, I guess. Interestingly enough, there was such a large age difference that it wasn't even relevant, and I didn't know he was uncut until after I was circumcised in my teens.
Additionally, my brother wasn't cut due to having a European father, who strongly objected to the procedure.
EDIT:
I should also add that *my* father is cut.
Last edited:
When I asked my folks they said they wanted me to be special haha. I was furious. Kids called me anteater in the lockerrooms. Lol haha ah my childhood.
Uncutpete
Superior Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Posts
- 1,369
- Media
- 133
- Likes
- 7,229
- Points
- 518
- Location
- New York (United States)
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
My mother's family did not believe in circumcision. Coming from Missouri they just didn't do it. My father's parents broke from the tradition and left him uncut. When he had to be cut for medical reasons, he swore that no one else in the family would be circumcised. I benefited from that resolution. My foreskin has brought me and my partners untold joy all my life.
I was born in the south and was left uncut for the same reason. However, because of the harassment I endured as a child, I wish they'd have got me cut as a baby.
I was called much worse than that and was heavily harassed. I also didn't see another uncut dick until I was 23 years old. I always thought I had a birth defect. It turns out I was totally normal.
I got circ'd last year. Best decision I ever made. This isn't the case with everyone, but I am convinced I made the right decision for myself.
I grew up in the Deep South in the 1950s and '60s, and my year-younger brother and I were about the only uncut/intact guys in school. My uncut father didn't see any reason for it, and luckily my mother's OB didn't think so either. I've always been glad I've got my foreskin and my soft super-sensitive glans, and I have never been teased about it or felt uncomfortable about it or had any problems with it. 
I asked my mom once years ago and she said she didn't see the point. The doctors recommended it for whatever reasons they had but my folks didn't buy it. Unfortunately I didn't learn proper penile care until my teenage years but now that I have I'm quite grateful. Foreskin is pretty awesome.
averagedude775
Experimental Member
Reading through the comments about the topic of circumcision always confuses me and I cannot fathom as to why people make such a big deal out of something so simple. And the nerve and outright stupidity that some of you have to call or even compare male circumcision to genital mutilation just goes to show how uneducated and naive you are. If you want to know what REAL genital mutilation is, do a quick google search on female genital mutilation, especially in Africa and the Middle East, and then try to make a logical comparison between the two. Real genital mutilation has the specific goal to intentionally and knowingly remove and disfigure very large portions of the genitals with the singular objective of destroying the ability to feel or enjoy sensation from that part of the body. If you still think that there is even the slightest similarity between male circumcision in Western Society to that type of barbaric sadism, then you are hopelessly incapable of rational thinking.
With that being said, the simple fact and only real truth of male circumcision is that the medical community is still undecided about any benefits or lack thereof when it comes to male circumcision. Period, there is no logically arguing that fact, and you are just biased if you do try to argue it. The medical community is very divided on the issue so no real consensus can be claimed for either side of the debate.
Some studies and reports suggest that men who are circumcised are less prone to catching and spreading STIs. While other reports say that no such benefit exists. At the same time there are reports that circumcised men are less physically sensitive than their counterparts, while other studies state the contrary ( this particular topic is especially dubious because sensitivity is obviously going to vary from man to man and from penis to penis and as such would be impossible to have any solid scientific basis for meaningful and most importantly comparable data ). Several studies of HIV transmission amongst African men showed circumcised men to contract the disease less frequently, while other studies have shown otherwise.
The only thing that is a fact about circumcision is that there are NO clear benefits NOR disadvantages of being circumcised. PERIOD. The entire issue basically comes down to preference.
I like being circumcised and I am very grateful for my parents having had the procedure done shortly after birth and giving me a gift which I enjoy as well as do my partners, and if I ever have a son I will do the same for him.
Some of you however really need to find something more important to stress and complain about than how your parents "ruined you" or "made your decisions" for you. And don't even try feeding me some half ass comment about how circumcision is psychologically traumatic and damaging to an infant, no such significant nor credible scientific evidence exists to support that theory. What is however generally accepted by most reputable psychologists is that the human brain is incapable of processing such events as being traumatic at such a young age since the mind of an infant is not sufficiently developed enough at that age to understand the context of such an event in order for the mind to form an actual memory of it, much less a memory which would have long lasting and negative damage. This could best be described as a person who was born blind being asked to describe a color in detail, they just don't have the right context to do so.
It comes down to this really, you have a penis, it works, and there is no significant difference, medically speaking, between being cut or uncut. The only difference is in entirely in your mind. So please, grow the fuck up, get the fuck over it, and move the fuck on....there are far more important things to life than worrying what yours or someone else's penis looks like
With that being said, the simple fact and only real truth of male circumcision is that the medical community is still undecided about any benefits or lack thereof when it comes to male circumcision. Period, there is no logically arguing that fact, and you are just biased if you do try to argue it. The medical community is very divided on the issue so no real consensus can be claimed for either side of the debate.
Some studies and reports suggest that men who are circumcised are less prone to catching and spreading STIs. While other reports say that no such benefit exists. At the same time there are reports that circumcised men are less physically sensitive than their counterparts, while other studies state the contrary ( this particular topic is especially dubious because sensitivity is obviously going to vary from man to man and from penis to penis and as such would be impossible to have any solid scientific basis for meaningful and most importantly comparable data ). Several studies of HIV transmission amongst African men showed circumcised men to contract the disease less frequently, while other studies have shown otherwise.
The only thing that is a fact about circumcision is that there are NO clear benefits NOR disadvantages of being circumcised. PERIOD. The entire issue basically comes down to preference.
I like being circumcised and I am very grateful for my parents having had the procedure done shortly after birth and giving me a gift which I enjoy as well as do my partners, and if I ever have a son I will do the same for him.
Some of you however really need to find something more important to stress and complain about than how your parents "ruined you" or "made your decisions" for you. And don't even try feeding me some half ass comment about how circumcision is psychologically traumatic and damaging to an infant, no such significant nor credible scientific evidence exists to support that theory. What is however generally accepted by most reputable psychologists is that the human brain is incapable of processing such events as being traumatic at such a young age since the mind of an infant is not sufficiently developed enough at that age to understand the context of such an event in order for the mind to form an actual memory of it, much less a memory which would have long lasting and negative damage. This could best be described as a person who was born blind being asked to describe a color in detail, they just don't have the right context to do so.
It comes down to this really, you have a penis, it works, and there is no significant difference, medically speaking, between being cut or uncut. The only difference is in entirely in your mind. So please, grow the fuck up, get the fuck over it, and move the fuck on....there are far more important things to life than worrying what yours or someone else's penis looks like
The medical community also thought that masturbation lead to insanity, seizures and a host of ailments. Cut off a young man's foreskin so he won't be so inclined to masturbate and you would save him from all these horrors. Sure, that was a century ago, but the medical community has not made many strides regarding foreskins. So much for the medical community. If you were circumcised as an infant and don't know the joys of having a foreskin, you are ill qualified to lay a tirade on those of us who know what it's like to have one and what others are missing. All penises may work, but they do NOT work the same.
Similar threads
- deleted26388511
- Everything Else
