Guys who PREFER cut or uncut

[D_Rufus_D_Dufus]

Doesn't matter to me. I'm not gonna judge someone based on how their cook looks.

 

[SirConcis]

Some guys may have a fetish, or a high curiosity and and looking to meet a guy with a certain type pf dick. If the goal of your encounter is to fulfill that fetish, then you will seek out a guy whose dick meets your fetish and rject others since they don't help your fetish.

If I wanted to discuss adult circumcision, I would likely wish to meet with a guy who also got cut as adult so we can share experiences, and would think that uncut guys wouldn't understand and not be able to relate to my experience. To a "normal" person, my requests to meet a got cut as adult would look silly, because he would not understand what would drive me to seek out such a specific feature in a guy.

 

[D_William Howard Shaft]

well there certainly would be difference in sensitivity since cut cocks are exposed to friction 24/7. I am cut... and wish i was more sensitive. However i find cut cocks more aesthetically pleasing compared to uncut.

 

[B_thickjohnny]

Strangely, I met a Czech guy on line about two weeks ago and we met for coffee/lunch a few times. Last night we got naked and I was surprised to find that he is cut. I asked him whether or not it was for medical reasons and he said no, he always liked cut cocks so he got cut too a few years ago.

Opposite it to that was the British guy (who prompted this thread) who knew I was American and presumed I was cut and said it was ok to be friends but more than that wouldn't happen because he preferred foreskin.

 

[B_RedDude]

Strongly prefer cut, but that's probably because I am and that's what I'm used to. Not sure it would be a deal breaker though.

Can't recall ever being rejected because I'm cut, or even had it commented on. One guy did ask me if I WAS cut, presumably because that is what he wanted.

 

[B_RedDude]

Not even if it has sores on it with pus coming out? :biggrin1:

Doesn't matter to me. I'm not gonna judge someone based on how their cook looks.

 

[Mmillz81]

Cut only for me!

 

[yoursgetsmine]

Big is good, bigger is better, cut is great and uncut is fantastic, while black is a bonus!!! I like my uncut cocks to have a "cock odor", which to me makes them stand out (no pun intended), and tastes great........and a "heavy shooter" is great no matter the size!!!

 

[arktrucker]

"I like my uncut cocks to have a "cock odor",

Me too. I refer to that as 'day old dick'. Still clean but smelling like a man. I really don't want to taste soap when it is placed on my tongue and if the man has put cologne on his cock.. the deal's off.

 

[yoursgetsmine]

Amen brother....amen!

 

[MeneerDeBeer]

I'm in agreement here. If a guy is cut, i find it a major turn-off. I have said many times before, it doesn't matter to me how attractive a guy is, if he is cut, it just won't work for me. It's nothing personal.

 

[monel]

... you don't have any way of realizing what you have lost.

Neither do you.

 

[mandoman]

Amen brother....amen!

I feel the same way. I find a scent extremely arousing.
That being said, I've had an uncut guy who was self centered.
That was no fun at all. He had everything I wanted in a cock.
It was like having a lovely meal, and not being able to enjoy it.
It's really the guy who is attached to it, and not the cock.

 

[B_RedDude]

Speaking for most male infants, we get over it very quickly, and eventually move on to other, more adult concerns.

It is exactly the fact that innocent babies who are subjected to infant male genital mutilation do not have the ability to choose that I am standing up for them.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

I'm curious as to why you keep referring to circumcision as mutilation. I understand that to mean it's somehow been destroyed; become nonfunctional and otherwise unpleasant to the various senses. Mine's not and I think there are hundreds upon thousands of circumcised guys who are the same. Aesthetically, my cock is fine. It functions quite well. My erections are strong (even at my advanced age :wink and I am sensitive regardless of the fact that some claim I'm not suppose to be. My cock was not mutilated. My foreskin was removed, period.

"Mutilation," in the strict medical sense, is the removal or loss of healthy body parts/tissue. I think most people (outside of medicine) associate this term with serious damage/disfigurement, which is much more subjective, and most circumcised men don't feel has been done to them. Mostly I think using this term is a form of lame taunting. This whole debate would be a lot better if people weren't fixated on their preference being the "right" preference for everyone else. Sane people can want different things for their bodies, or even be apathetic about things they don't necessarily prefer.

Speaking for most male infants, we get over it very quickly, and eventually move on to other, more adult concerns.

Yeah, but this doesn't make it right. The same is true with FGM -- legit FGM, not female prepucectomy -- but does that mean that's ethical? (I'm not equalizing the two, I'm just pointing out how that argument isn't sufficient to prove something is ethical.)

 

[trkr4ckskr]

I'm curious as to why you keep referring to circumcision as mutilation. ......................................

I have always refused to call what is done to innocent babies who can not give consent as "circumcision" because that is actually an ancient Jewish religious ritual, and Kellogg and others who started the 20th century practice of penile alteration adopted that term for it in order to try to give it an air of legitimacy.

I adopted the term "infant male genital mutitlation" because it is provocative language and it is the language used by the female activists who have been successful in getting infant female genital mutilation outlawed in the United States and throughout the civilized world.

I have no desire to taunt those upon whose body this penile alteration was perpetrated when they were innocent babies. When I was a child, I was the only intact male in my age group, and the other boys tried to ridicule and taunt me because I was different. But I was so fortunate to have a father who had saved me from having one of the best parts of my dick cut off, and he gave me the knowlege and wherewithall to set them straight about the fact that I was the one with normal natural intact genitals and they were the ones who had been fixed like a dog. Once I made them accept that I was the one who was normal and natural, then I have had no further desire to taunt anyone.

I am aware that there are degrees of mutilation, and that the vast majority of those who were subjected to penile alteration as infants are not horribly mutilated. Most of them have no concept of what was done to them, just like the dogs out in my dogpen do not know that anything was done to them. That is what makes it such a heinous violation of basic human rights, an innocent baby is not able to make a decision or give informed consent to having a part of his anatomy removed. My own father is the only man that I have ever known who had his healthy normal foreskin removed as an adult. He was not an activist like me, because they had done it to my older brother, but he saved me from it, warned me to never let any woman tell me to submit to such a thing, and he spent the rest of his life telling me "Your mama sent me to the doctor and had me butchered!". But there was nothing remarkable about what was done to him. He looked just like the majority of altered males. My older brother was the first in my family to be born in a hospital, and he was the first to be altered. The doctor told my parents about how nasty and disgusting the intact penis would be, so they had it done to him and my mother insisted that it be done to my father as well. It was a bad job on my brother, but I doubt that he has ever realized it. His scar is at the base of his cock, and there simply was not enough skin left for growth at puberty. When I would see him going to the bathroom with morning wood, the skin was stretched so tight and was so thin that you could see through it.

I am going to advocate for the innocent babies until infant male genital mutilation is made illegal throughout the world. I have no desire to make those to whom this has already been done feel bad about themselves. I have never rejected anyone sexually because of an altered penis. Of course the penis remains functional after the foreskin is removed. The loss of the nerve endings and blood vessels is not severe enough to prevent sexual function. And the loss of sensation due to the keritization and toughening of the glans and what was meant to be the inner skin of the penis is not enough to prevent sexual function. But common sense and the testimony of my own father tells me that this greatly lessens the sexual pleasure of those to whom this has been done.

Those who have the foreskin removed as an adult, giving consent to the surgery, because of phimosis or other penile defect, or simply because of their own personal desire for penile alteration, are likely to be very pleased with the result of the surgery. I am also very pleased for them if they had their foreskin removed as an act of their own free will.

 

[travis1985]

I prefer uncut, but cut is fine, too. As others have said, the preference is just that, and it's the man himself who is important.

As far as people who are exclusively interested in either one or the other, I've met many, many people who demand a circumcised partner and consider uncircumcised to be gross. I've never encountered anyone in person who is the opposite. I think that comes from living in a country where most men are cut and just being used to it. If Americans saw more uncircumcised penises, they wouldn't find them so shocking.

 

[CobraLover]

Uncut is more fun to play with and it tastes better than cut cock, which unless it precums or is sweaty doesn't have the musky flavor that is hot. Clean and big cocks are hot. Uncut cocks are hotter.

 

[SirConcis]

If you use "mutilation" for male circumcision, then you must use mutilation for all cosmetic surgery, face lifts, breasts lifts, breat augmentation etc etc.

Circumcision is cosmetic surgery. Period. It is not a mutilation.

That you do not agree that cosmetic surgery should be done on a baby, fine. But don't call it mutilation.

 

[erratic]

"Mutilation," in the strict medical sense, is the removal or loss of healthy body parts/tissue. I think most people (outside of medicine) associate this term with serious damage/disfigurement, which is much more subjective, and most circumcised men don't feel has been done to them. Mostly I think using this term is a form of lame taunting.

Quoted for truth. While technically correct, the term serves to be more incendiary than anything else since, as Young Native points out, the contemporary colloquial usage of the word suggests that something mutilated has been basically turned in to Taco Bell mystery meat. I'd be offended too.